1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,560
Okay, now it is 2 o'clock and I'd just like to remind anyone who is watching the recording

2
00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:19,040
to just skip in because normally this is a very slow start and then it ends much better.

3
00:00:19,040 --> 00:00:23,799
But I'll just start talking about the mobile wallet is out.

4
00:00:23,799 --> 00:00:30,719
New mobile wallet is out and eCash.com wallet.

5
00:00:30,719 --> 00:00:31,959
So that's exciting.

6
00:00:31,959 --> 00:00:36,480
And then I said I would do this free samurai thing, but I didn't do it yet.

7
00:00:36,480 --> 00:00:39,200
And there's really no reason for it because basically I finished it.

8
00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:43,799
But sometimes when I finish writing something, I want to see like digest it a little bit

9
00:00:43,799 --> 00:00:49,099
and think like, should I change any of this, but I haven't changed any of this fine.

10
00:00:49,099 --> 00:00:56,060
So I think tomorrow at 9 a.m. or 7 a.m., a publisher, I was thinking about that.

11
00:00:56,060 --> 00:00:58,820
I'm sorry for the delay.

12
00:00:58,820 --> 00:01:03,259
There's really no reason other than I was doing a lot of jogging and it makes me very

13
00:01:03,259 --> 00:01:13,739
tired to go jogging in the sun to sleep, but okay.

14
00:01:13,739 --> 00:01:23,419
And I wanted to comment on the comparative advantage tweet I made this week.

15
00:01:23,419 --> 00:01:24,419
It's very simple.

16
00:01:24,419 --> 00:01:30,500
Unless anyone wants to come up, if you want to come up and ask a question, please feel

17
00:01:30,500 --> 00:01:34,620
free to do so.

18
00:01:34,620 --> 00:01:40,699
Otherwise I'll just run through my list of events of the week primarily for the benefit

19
00:01:40,699 --> 00:01:44,300
of anyone listening to the recording.

20
00:01:44,300 --> 00:01:47,839
Because otherwise there'll just be a bunch of blank space.

21
00:01:47,839 --> 00:01:52,699
But over the past week, I compared, okay, I retweeted a bunch of stuff that I tweeted

22
00:01:52,699 --> 00:01:55,980
about microstrategy a long time ago.

23
00:01:55,980 --> 00:02:00,739
One of them was I asked a simple question, what is microstrategy comparative advantage?

24
00:02:00,739 --> 00:02:09,259
And then we had to listen to this wacky answer from Lynn Alden to say something about some

25
00:02:09,259 --> 00:02:10,259
nonsense answer.

26
00:02:10,259 --> 00:02:11,699
I don't even remember it.

27
00:02:11,699 --> 00:02:16,899
Like I don't even remember what it was, but I just like to go over why that it's such

28
00:02:16,899 --> 00:02:23,779
an important, if something is a comparative advantage, for example, Elon Tesla can make

29
00:02:23,779 --> 00:02:29,039
electric cars better than I can.

30
00:02:29,039 --> 00:02:34,899
So if it's a comparative advantage, that means it's good for them to make the cars and it's

31
00:02:34,899 --> 00:02:37,820
good for me to invest the money.

32
00:02:37,820 --> 00:02:41,820
It's good for both of us, two out of two people it's good for.

33
00:02:41,820 --> 00:02:46,899
If you go to the bakery, you have the bakery to get some bread.

34
00:02:46,899 --> 00:02:51,179
If they're really good at baking the bread, maybe they break it all at once in a big oven.

35
00:02:51,179 --> 00:02:58,419
They have economies of scale, they have expertise, they're specialists.

36
00:02:58,419 --> 00:03:01,419
It's good for them to bake as much bread as they can.

37
00:03:01,419 --> 00:03:04,679
It's good for me to buy it there instead of making it myself.

38
00:03:04,679 --> 00:03:11,679
So again, two out of two, two out of two people it's good for.

39
00:03:11,679 --> 00:03:17,800
The idea of comparative advantage means there's always a gain from the trade for both sides

40
00:03:17,800 --> 00:03:19,039
of the trade.

41
00:03:19,039 --> 00:03:25,500
Now for microstrategy, what on earth is the gain from the trade supposed to be?

42
00:03:25,500 --> 00:03:29,320
If there's no comparative advantage, it means that someone is benefiting at the expense

43
00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:37,080
of someone else and that is in fact the case because now microstrategy is in this situation

44
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:44,860
where they're either going to screw over Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, except not me because

45
00:03:44,860 --> 00:03:52,039
I didn't buy any of this junk, but metaphorically you have a certain amount of money, a certain

46
00:03:52,039 --> 00:03:56,759
pool of money and you have the preferreds, you have the common stock and you have convertible

47
00:03:56,759 --> 00:04:04,639
debt and you have the assets and these assets are just going to go to someone, someone will

48
00:04:04,639 --> 00:04:05,639
get these.

49
00:04:05,639 --> 00:04:09,639
If you're just re-slicing up the pizza pie in different ways, then some people are benefiting

50
00:04:09,639 --> 00:04:10,639
at the expense of other people.

51
00:04:10,639 --> 00:04:14,759
When you have comparative advantage, it grows the pie, you grow the pie.

52
00:04:14,759 --> 00:04:21,959
This is what it's all about, it's growing the pie because growing the pie, it's more

53
00:04:21,959 --> 00:04:23,920
pie for everyone.

54
00:04:24,079 --> 00:04:29,200
If instead we just fight each other, then it's just life is nasty, brutish and short

55
00:04:29,200 --> 00:04:34,480
and nature is red in tooth and claw and all that's very depressing and sad, whereas if

56
00:04:34,480 --> 00:04:40,079
we grow the pie, eventually everyone will have a solution to every problem that they

57
00:04:40,079 --> 00:04:42,079
could ever have had in their entire life.

58
00:04:42,079 --> 00:04:47,200
Eventually it would be better health, better entertainment, we'll be bringing people back

59
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:54,399
to life, we'll be restarting the universe, free entropy and blah, blah, blah.

60
00:04:54,399 --> 00:05:00,559
Free energy, I mean, meant to say, but the point is comparative advantage is where it's

61
00:05:00,559 --> 00:05:02,880
all at.

62
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:07,720
That's what micro-strategy needs to have, but how could they have one because they're

63
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:13,200
just buying Bitcoin, which you could do themselves and you got to pay for their lawyers and accounts.

64
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:20,239
Now again, if you want to ask or comment on anything, hop on up, and Vlad is here as

65
00:05:20,239 --> 00:05:25,160
the co-host, so Vlad, if you have anything you want to comment on, but again, mobile

66
00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:29,839
wallet is out, free samurai thing will be, that'll be tomorrow at 7am, hopefully, God

67
00:05:29,839 --> 00:05:36,040
willing, I mean, I delayed it pointlessly for no reason for like a whole week, but it

68
00:05:36,040 --> 00:05:37,320
is what it is.

69
00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:44,320
I wanted to comment on BitNames and how much better it is, in the future it will be, which

70
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:53,720
is to say, I was thinking about earlier this week, I got an email from a utility company

71
00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:58,399
that was saying, pay this bill, and I was like, oh, okay.

72
00:05:58,399 --> 00:06:04,160
In it, you have to click the link, then the link brings you to the login page, you have

73
00:06:04,160 --> 00:06:09,000
to type in your email and password again, now of course, whatever, a million passwords

74
00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:11,880
everyone is always going to forget.

75
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:15,119
Then once you're in there, you got to type in all this stuff.

76
00:06:15,119 --> 00:06:16,119
What is the point of that?

77
00:06:16,119 --> 00:06:21,440
In the BitNames universe, it's just the message is already, you know, once they send you a

78
00:06:21,440 --> 00:06:29,160
message and say, hi, you still owe me $20, you say, okay, you pay, right in the thing.

79
00:06:29,160 --> 00:06:31,040
That's what it should be like.

80
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:35,720
That's what a nightmare it's like instead.

81
00:06:35,720 --> 00:06:39,600
But of course, people have tried to do that for years, Apple and whatever.

82
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:44,880
Presumably, I don't know that this is the case, but presumably it's because of all the

83
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:49,119
financial regulations and stuff that they cannot easily do that, and they're worried

84
00:06:49,119 --> 00:06:57,920
about a whole list of other things, fraud, et cetera, banking, whatever.

85
00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:00,540
Anyway, so that's one thing.

86
00:07:01,040 --> 00:07:02,040
What's another thing?

87
00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:03,040
Let's see what else I see on my list.

88
00:07:03,040 --> 00:07:04,040
Oh, this happened yesterday.

89
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:05,040
Okay.

90
00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:11,660
I don't know if anyone will be interested in this at all, but I see Joe is here.

91
00:07:11,660 --> 00:07:16,019
But this guy, Fred K., and I don't remember where this guy got his start.

92
00:07:16,019 --> 00:07:25,500
He's apparently a Stanford PhD, but he's got some wacky views on when to bring up confidence

93
00:07:25,500 --> 00:07:26,500
intervals.

94
00:07:27,500 --> 00:07:33,140
First of all, so he has this funny tweet, I don't know, I could barely even wrap my

95
00:07:33,140 --> 00:07:34,140
head around it.

96
00:07:34,140 --> 00:07:35,140
It's quite embarrassing.

97
00:07:35,140 --> 00:07:44,420
But he's saying that he ran a poll, and the poll was something like 54% to 46%, and because

98
00:07:44,420 --> 00:07:49,260
it had a high enough N, high enough number of respondents, he's saying, basically he's

99
00:07:49,260 --> 00:07:54,220
saying we can reject the hypothesis that it's a 50-50 or something.

100
00:07:54,940 --> 00:08:01,260
It's really bizarre because the criterion he's using is, so this is something that you're

101
00:08:01,260 --> 00:08:05,459
taught in statistics class, and a lot of people don't understand it very well, including this

102
00:08:05,459 --> 00:08:06,459
guy.

103
00:08:06,459 --> 00:08:11,859
I don't even know where to wrap my head around how silly it is, but basically he's saying

104
00:08:11,859 --> 00:08:20,179
that if he reran the poll, and it was 50.001% versus 49.999%, but you had like a billion,

105
00:08:20,179 --> 00:08:22,899
N equals a billion respondents.

106
00:08:22,899 --> 00:08:30,260
The confidence is, you know, the so-called P-value go down, you become even more confident

107
00:08:30,260 --> 00:08:33,380
that it was more than 50%.

108
00:08:33,380 --> 00:08:37,299
But I mean, what the heck is the point?

109
00:08:37,299 --> 00:08:38,659
So I don't know.

110
00:08:38,659 --> 00:08:44,739
The guy is an interesting character, and there's this thing, structural equation.

111
00:08:44,739 --> 00:08:49,059
Probably no one cares about this at all, but this guy, but it's just, it's wild for someone

112
00:08:49,059 --> 00:08:55,340
with a Stanford PhD to just be rambling on about such a ridiculous criterion.

113
00:08:55,340 --> 00:08:58,460
I mean, he's literally, imagine you go down to the street, you got another, this is a

114
00:08:58,460 --> 00:09:03,700
more relatable example, and you survey like five people who live near you.

115
00:09:03,700 --> 00:09:07,460
No, hey, what do you think about cutting taxes?

116
00:09:07,460 --> 00:09:12,619
And then all four out of five say that, and then you just say, oh, that's 80%.

117
00:09:12,619 --> 00:09:17,619
That's a number for like the whole, that's a number for the whole.

118
00:09:17,619 --> 00:09:23,140
That's a reliable estimate of like the pop of the world's population is thoughts on tax.

119
00:09:23,140 --> 00:09:25,059
So it's just bizarre, but whatever.

120
00:09:25,059 --> 00:09:31,539
We've got a lot of wacky people in Bitcoin, but this is like a leading light of 110.

121
00:09:31,539 --> 00:09:32,539
So I don't know.

122
00:09:32,539 --> 00:09:33,539
No one's going to care about that.

123
00:09:33,539 --> 00:09:39,179
But I thought I would mention it to fill the time until someone comes up and asks a real

124
00:09:39,179 --> 00:09:40,179
question.

125
00:09:40,179 --> 00:09:47,380
We've got Hunter Beast here, I added him as a speaker, but oh, here we go.

126
00:09:48,140 --> 00:09:51,140
Hey guys, thanks for adding me.

127
00:09:51,140 --> 00:09:53,140
Yeah, I've got lots of questions.

128
00:09:53,140 --> 00:10:01,099
So honestly, I haven't looked into eCash enough, at least, first of all, why the name?

129
00:10:01,099 --> 00:10:02,900
Because it's a little confusing, right?

130
00:10:02,900 --> 00:10:10,580
Like it's, there's a lot of things named that before, and so just curious about that decision

131
00:10:10,580 --> 00:10:11,580
first.

132
00:10:11,580 --> 00:10:15,700
Yeah, it's a generic name.

133
00:10:15,700 --> 00:10:20,419
But it's a pretty good name because it's two syllables and it's easy to spell.

134
00:10:20,419 --> 00:10:26,940
And eCash.com was available, actually many domains, I was very surprised myself.

135
00:10:26,940 --> 00:10:33,059
I would never have done it if there wasn't, if we didn't find out that all these domains

136
00:10:33,059 --> 00:10:39,539
were available, but many,.com,.com with a dash,.net, like a bunch of misspelled versions,

137
00:10:39,539 --> 00:10:42,020
a bunch of like weird.

138
00:10:42,020 --> 00:10:48,380
So it was, as far as I'm concerned, the domain, you know, the.com is mostly the name.

139
00:10:48,380 --> 00:10:49,380
Interesting.

140
00:10:49,380 --> 00:10:50,380
Yeah.

141
00:10:50,380 --> 00:10:58,539
Well, it's funny about when you originally announced the eCash hard fork for Bitcoin,

142
00:10:58,539 --> 00:11:06,700
that there was like a community note that said that like there was some like shitcoin

143
00:11:06,700 --> 00:11:09,580
like from 2021 named that.

144
00:11:09,580 --> 00:11:16,460
And I had pointed out that it was like originally coined as a term in the 1980s, like Charmini

145
00:11:16,460 --> 00:11:18,219
Cash.

146
00:11:18,219 --> 00:11:25,700
And my community note, I still cannot produce community notes now due to that.

147
00:11:25,700 --> 00:11:29,820
Me pointing out, like, it's like the only time I've ever used community notes was like,

148
00:11:29,820 --> 00:11:31,739
oh, I can speak to this.

149
00:11:31,739 --> 00:11:38,659
And the shitcoiners basically reported my note because I had not acknowledged their

150
00:11:38,739 --> 00:11:46,380
random shitcoin by the same name that essentially like was completely irrelevant to the discussion

151
00:11:46,380 --> 00:11:49,059
of the name eCash, which I thought was kind of funny.

152
00:11:51,179 --> 00:11:54,539
Well, there's a lot of literature that refers to eCash.

153
00:11:54,539 --> 00:12:01,179
I think there's an article from The Economist dating back to the late 80s or early 90s

154
00:12:01,179 --> 00:12:03,299
where they were trying to describe eCash.

155
00:12:03,739 --> 00:12:10,219
And I also believe it's on the blog of some Dutch guy who has been researching Bitcoin

156
00:12:10,219 --> 00:12:12,020
and has been archiving stuff.

157
00:12:12,539 --> 00:12:18,140
And one of the earliest allegedly versions of the Bitcoin white paper was actually called

158
00:12:18,140 --> 00:12:19,580
eCash.pdf.

159
00:12:19,979 --> 00:12:24,179
And the title of it before it was Bitcoin was not Bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic

160
00:12:24,179 --> 00:12:24,940
cash system.

161
00:12:25,340 --> 00:12:29,700
It was electronic cash without a trusted third party or something along these lines.

162
00:12:30,059 --> 00:12:37,260
So it's been like this long term cypherpunk quest to be able to create decentralized eCash.

163
00:12:37,780 --> 00:12:42,179
Of course, Bitcoin is not really decentralized eCash because it doesn't have the privacy

164
00:12:42,179 --> 00:12:45,179
aspect of it, which the Chami and eCash had.

165
00:12:45,780 --> 00:12:52,179
But it is decentralized with Game Theory and all the cool stuff that Satoshi came up with

166
00:12:52,580 --> 00:12:57,299
by stitching together elements that were researched prior to his emergence.

167
00:12:57,780 --> 00:13:04,859
So eCash is sort of like a precursor to Bitcoin and the fact that this hard fork of

168
00:13:04,859 --> 00:13:11,940
Bitcoin is going to have a privacy sidechain and basically it will be able to fulfill a

169
00:13:11,940 --> 00:13:18,539
lot of the ideas that were being discussed for eCash generically gives it a bit more

170
00:13:18,580 --> 00:13:28,179
legitimacy. Whereas in the case of the fork of Bitcoin cash, which is called XCC or eCash,

171
00:13:28,820 --> 00:13:34,099
that one just adds the avalanche pre consensus, which makes it like a hybrid of proof of

172
00:13:34,099 --> 00:13:35,219
work and proof of stake.

173
00:13:35,900 --> 00:13:37,460
But it doesn't have privacy.

174
00:13:37,539 --> 00:13:40,940
It doesn't have anything very interesting outside of that.

175
00:13:41,340 --> 00:13:42,299
That is so funny.

176
00:13:42,299 --> 00:13:48,260
So they added avalanche consensus to a fork of Bitcoin cash and they called it eCash.

177
00:13:49,460 --> 00:13:54,500
Yeah, I didn't even really know that this was I didn't even like I was just like what I

178
00:13:54,500 --> 00:13:59,940
thought was because I kind of glanced at it when I was researching the eCash.com and I

179
00:13:59,940 --> 00:14:05,419
just thought that, oh, someone bought like some tiny domain and that this is like some

180
00:14:05,419 --> 00:14:10,619
complete fly by night operation that's just run by 15 people with like a botnet, which it

181
00:14:10,619 --> 00:14:15,979
basically is. But that's I kind of just thought someone just bought the thing and just did

182
00:14:15,979 --> 00:14:21,780
some kind of because it's very, very low coin market cap and it has only like 100

183
00:14:21,780 --> 00:14:28,059
million. The total market cap, which is like super, super inflated because it's like it

184
00:14:28,059 --> 00:14:35,179
turns out that the XCC is like a fork of a fork of Bitcoin cash or something like that,

185
00:14:35,179 --> 00:14:37,979
Bitcoin cash itself forked a few times.

186
00:14:38,419 --> 00:14:41,260
So like most of the UTXOs are totally dormant.

187
00:14:42,140 --> 00:14:47,179
So and like the trading, everything is like super, super small, much smaller than so.

188
00:14:47,179 --> 00:14:51,739
Yeah, that is kind of unfortunate that I hate to step on anyone's toes.

189
00:14:51,739 --> 00:14:55,780
But of course, there are many, many things named have been named eCash over the years.

190
00:14:55,780 --> 00:14:57,659
And of course, it's kind of a generic idea.

191
00:14:57,659 --> 00:15:03,859
Like, you know, you have email, e-scooter, whatever, a million things named e, you know,

192
00:15:03,859 --> 00:15:06,539
like e-ink, like there's like a trillion things.

193
00:15:07,020 --> 00:15:11,539
So it's like I didn't really like the thing that comes to my mind, like the question that

194
00:15:11,539 --> 00:15:18,580
comes to my mind is like if you're using avalanche consensus and also proof of work

195
00:15:18,580 --> 00:15:23,859
somehow, then that's confusing to me as a protocol engineer because you have multiple

196
00:15:23,859 --> 00:15:25,219
sources of truth for one.

197
00:15:25,539 --> 00:15:31,580
But then also what's confusing to me is why do you call it eCash if we're thinking like

198
00:15:31,780 --> 00:15:34,619
like when I think when somebody says eCash, maybe I'm wrong to think this.

199
00:15:34,619 --> 00:15:38,940
But when somebody says eCash, I think of Chowmian eCash, which, you know, has a system

200
00:15:38,940 --> 00:15:44,260
of Chowmian mints that, you know, they have some kind of collateral and they have some

201
00:15:44,260 --> 00:15:47,539
kind of proof of reserves or some proof of liabilities.

202
00:15:47,539 --> 00:15:52,780
And they have, you know, like, you know, like issuance against those reserves.

203
00:15:52,979 --> 00:15:58,059
And then those eCash notes, those tokens, those notes or whatever you call them, those

204
00:15:58,059 --> 00:16:02,340
are then transferable as bare instruments off chain.

205
00:16:02,340 --> 00:16:06,419
Right. And so like you have perfect privacy in that scenario.

206
00:16:06,820 --> 00:16:14,419
But what's weird about that is how the fuck do you involve avalanche consensus when

207
00:16:14,659 --> 00:16:18,059
you're making like I don't understand.

208
00:16:18,659 --> 00:16:19,979
Like so it doesn't matter.

209
00:16:19,979 --> 00:16:24,059
I wouldn't worry about it. The thing is, though, they pay the they have a thing set up

210
00:16:24,059 --> 00:16:27,940
where they have like a dev tax that pays one person.

211
00:16:28,419 --> 00:16:32,539
And I'm pretty sure, you know, it's like kind of obvious, like that person has purchased

212
00:16:32,539 --> 00:16:34,059
a bunch of like Twitter bots.

213
00:16:34,539 --> 00:16:35,820
So that is how you.

214
00:16:36,979 --> 00:16:41,780
So it just is what it is, and obviously they're not going to be happy and there's

215
00:16:41,780 --> 00:16:42,900
nothing we can do to.

216
00:16:44,780 --> 00:16:48,700
Bring them any joy in life, so it's just it is what it is, it's just going to have to

217
00:16:48,700 --> 00:16:53,900
like, I mean, I would have thought, but yeah, like with doing very, very little, the

218
00:16:53,900 --> 00:17:01,020
project is already much like even at the the sales already, the level of sales and

219
00:17:01,020 --> 00:17:05,699
the like, you can look at the Solana meme token market cap and it's already like this

220
00:17:05,699 --> 00:17:10,260
project is already like 10 times larger than it has even gotten started yet.

221
00:17:10,260 --> 00:17:13,099
So it's just like whatever it is, it is what it is.

222
00:17:13,660 --> 00:17:16,260
Do we want to move to a second?

223
00:17:17,660 --> 00:17:21,979
I just had a question in regards to like stable coins, and I don't know if you were

224
00:17:21,979 --> 00:17:22,819
sorry, I interrupted you.

225
00:17:23,900 --> 00:17:25,859
No, please ask the question.

226
00:17:25,979 --> 00:17:27,699
Yeah, just in regards to stable coins.

227
00:17:27,699 --> 00:17:32,819
Like, so you have a strategy for sort of BitNames, like how to like compete with ICANN.

228
00:17:33,660 --> 00:17:36,939
I don't know if there's like any equivalent strategy for like kind of like competing with

229
00:17:36,939 --> 00:17:42,219
like major stable coins or if there's an advantage to using stable coins like within

230
00:17:42,219 --> 00:17:44,380
the ecosystem of Drivechain in particular.

231
00:17:44,380 --> 00:17:45,819
I don't know if you caught this.

232
00:17:45,819 --> 00:17:51,099
This question has come up before, but you can have like a stable coin of a stable coin.

233
00:17:51,099 --> 00:17:53,780
So I was either thinking, OK, because here's what I'm thinking.

234
00:17:53,780 --> 00:17:54,819
This is how I think about it.

235
00:17:56,140 --> 00:18:00,540
Tether is like the most profitable business model like in the universe.

236
00:18:01,859 --> 00:18:06,140
I think that is not even an exaggeration to say, I think it's literally the case, like

237
00:18:06,140 --> 00:18:07,900
profit per employee is like huge.

238
00:18:08,339 --> 00:18:12,459
So they just have printing money hand over foot.

239
00:18:13,300 --> 00:18:19,459
And so why would they if they're either going to team up with us and continue to make

240
00:18:19,459 --> 00:18:25,939
huge amounts of money or they're going to not do that, if they don't, someone can just

241
00:18:25,939 --> 00:18:36,380
make it like a tether, like a USDT, D, a Drivechain, USDT, and where it's redeemable

242
00:18:36,380 --> 00:18:40,459
for USDT. And now it's completely programmatic.

243
00:18:40,459 --> 00:18:41,619
You don't need to have a bank account.

244
00:18:41,619 --> 00:18:44,060
Like Tether needs to have a bank account and he sells stuff.

245
00:18:44,939 --> 00:18:50,420
And you wouldn't need you just publish the amount of USDT you hold somehow, right?

246
00:18:50,420 --> 00:18:55,540
And the other thing is you can stake if you just have USDT on Kraken or whatever, you can get

247
00:18:55,540 --> 00:18:59,780
like a free yield on it, which is just the same thing that other people do is they have all

248
00:18:59,780 --> 00:19:03,420
their actual real fiat, dirty fiat USDT.

249
00:19:04,339 --> 00:19:10,859
They have that in earning some yield somewhere, which is why they make so much money doing

250
00:19:10,859 --> 00:19:16,020
nothing. And so, yeah, basically, if you would just be a new tether.

251
00:19:16,020 --> 00:19:22,660
So since all this is like unbelievably viable business model, to say the least, I kind of

252
00:19:22,660 --> 00:19:23,979
don't worry about it that much.

253
00:19:24,819 --> 00:19:26,380
That's my that's my thought on that.

254
00:19:26,380 --> 00:19:27,380
That's like my strategy.

255
00:19:29,660 --> 00:19:40,579
OK, cool. If I can like one question, why the decision of setting the difficulty to

256
00:19:40,579 --> 00:19:45,819
one? Because like I expect a lot of people like trying to reorg each other.

257
00:19:46,219 --> 00:19:52,540
And one second question, there will be just one official pool or will be the code like of

258
00:19:52,540 --> 00:19:56,699
the reference pool public and everyone can run his own pool?

259
00:19:57,482 --> 00:19:59,482
Yeah, those are really good questions.

260
00:19:59,682 --> 00:20:03,282
First of all, the the pool will be open source.

261
00:20:03,482 --> 00:20:07,762
Anyone can run will anyone will be able to run a pool.

262
00:20:07,962 --> 00:20:11,202
And I'm afraid the whole thing about setting the difficulty to one,

263
00:20:11,402 --> 00:20:16,201
you know, that's maybe me taking a little bit of artistic license and explaining

264
00:20:16,402 --> 00:20:22,201
what I meant was it will be very low in the battle between setting it too high

265
00:20:22,402 --> 00:20:25,802
and too low and I intentionally set it too low.

266
00:20:26,002 --> 00:20:28,201
And so it won't literally be the lowest

267
00:20:28,402 --> 00:20:31,682
possible value, but it will kind of look around,

268
00:20:31,882 --> 00:20:35,441
figure out what do we think the difficulty should be?

269
00:20:35,642 --> 00:20:38,921
Then divide that by like 200

270
00:20:39,121 --> 00:20:40,682
or something.

271
00:20:41,322 --> 00:20:44,482
So the point is, it will be too low.

272
00:20:44,682 --> 00:20:47,081
You know, then skyrocket up by a factor

273
00:20:47,281 --> 00:20:51,601
of four several times since four is the maximum difficulty adjustment.

274
00:20:51,802 --> 00:20:54,722
But it'll just go up by four and then go up by four again.

275
00:20:54,722 --> 00:20:58,642
So to go for 16, et cetera,

276
00:20:58,842 --> 00:21:01,362
and it will just go up and up and it will eventually hit.

277
00:21:01,562 --> 00:21:03,721
So that's that is the launch trajectory.

278
00:21:03,922 --> 00:21:07,962
So it won't literally go to the lowest difficulty.

279
00:21:08,162 --> 00:21:14,962
I was just trying to make it clear using a few words as possible that it will be.

280
00:21:15,162 --> 00:21:18,721
We're going to be undershooting it on purpose.

281
00:21:19,482 --> 00:21:20,482
OK, thank you.

282
00:21:20,681 --> 00:21:25,441
Just last question, pool wise, like at the launch,

283
00:21:25,642 --> 00:21:29,842
we will have just one pool or like the code of the pool will be public

284
00:21:30,041 --> 00:21:33,482
like a month before the launch of UKish.

285
00:21:33,681 --> 00:21:37,802
Yeah, I know the pool will be it already is this simple pool is open source,

286
00:21:38,001 --> 00:21:42,802
it's not that good yet, but it's getting better all the time.

287
00:21:43,001 --> 00:21:44,401
And

288
00:21:44,802 --> 00:21:48,962
people can also we really only need there to be two of them,

289
00:21:48,962 --> 00:21:52,642
if you think about it, because you can either point or it will it will cash you

290
00:21:52,842 --> 00:21:56,642
out. The way it will eventually work, hopefully,

291
00:21:56,842 --> 00:22:00,562
you know, sometime very soon, like talking like next week or so,

292
00:22:00,761 --> 00:22:03,882
but you never know with software, it always takes longer than you think.

293
00:22:04,081 --> 00:22:08,802
So it should be paying you out on thunder very, very quickly.

294
00:22:09,002 --> 00:22:10,642
So

295
00:22:10,842 --> 00:22:14,082
you should be able to just point your hash rate to the pool.

296
00:22:14,282 --> 00:22:17,002
But these are kind of difficult,

297
00:22:17,202 --> 00:22:20,642
complicated, complicated details to iron out.

298
00:22:20,842 --> 00:22:24,442
But yeah, and of course, even if it's not at launch,

299
00:22:24,642 --> 00:22:30,562
the whole the end goal is that there will be open source pool software.

300
00:22:30,761 --> 00:22:33,601
That works with open source node

301
00:22:33,802 --> 00:22:38,961
and to the point where anyone can easily leave a pool and start their own,

302
00:22:39,161 --> 00:22:43,562
and that will massively increase pool competitiveness.

303
00:22:43,802 --> 00:22:46,362
So I think we have pulled that drivechain.info.

304
00:22:46,562 --> 00:22:49,562
If you want more technical details,

305
00:22:51,761 --> 00:22:53,722
those are there.

306
00:22:55,282 --> 00:22:58,002
I think

307
00:22:58,202 --> 00:23:02,002
is where it is living for now, but we'll have to

308
00:23:02,562 --> 00:23:04,642
continue after that.

309
00:23:07,642 --> 00:23:10,761
Sorry, I was asking him if he was in the telegram, didn't mean to cut you off.

310
00:23:10,761 --> 00:23:11,802
Sorry. All right.

311
00:23:12,002 --> 00:23:14,521
OK, no problem.

312
00:23:18,442 --> 00:23:22,562
So I saw you talking about Tether and USDT

313
00:23:22,761 --> 00:23:24,401
and

314
00:23:25,161 --> 00:23:29,642
one of the use cases we know, and I said this before, that is huge today,

315
00:23:29,842 --> 00:23:31,521
is stable coin payments, right?

316
00:23:31,722 --> 00:23:33,002
But

317
00:23:33,202 --> 00:23:39,562
as far as I understand, you could not do like USDT token on thunder, right?

318
00:23:39,761 --> 00:23:43,562
So where would where would it be like,

319
00:23:43,761 --> 00:23:49,521
because we have elements and that can handle assets, but it doesn't scale, right?

320
00:23:49,722 --> 00:23:52,002
It's not meant to scale too much.

321
00:23:52,202 --> 00:23:57,601
So if that ever becomes like the expected to be a new chain.

322
00:23:57,802 --> 00:23:58,802
Yeah, of course, we have this thing,

323
00:23:59,002 --> 00:24:02,722
BitAssets, which is supposed to be set up for that.

324
00:24:02,922 --> 00:24:08,202
Now, OK, this is a question that people have asked many times about.

325
00:24:08,401 --> 00:24:11,241
To what extent should they be?

326
00:24:11,442 --> 00:24:14,841
Should the sidechains be topic specific,

327
00:24:15,041 --> 00:24:19,362
like should they be like a Swiss army knife or should they be like

328
00:24:19,561 --> 00:24:21,482
or should they just be like different block sizes?

329
00:24:21,682 --> 00:24:26,321
So some people say that Thunder and BitAssets should merge.

330
00:24:26,522 --> 00:24:28,321
Merge, yeah. Some say that.

331
00:24:28,522 --> 00:24:30,321
Yeah, I don't know. Maybe they should.

332
00:24:30,522 --> 00:24:32,682
I think it could be either way.

333
00:24:32,881 --> 00:24:35,761
It could be good. It could be a good idea.

334
00:24:35,922 --> 00:24:38,001
The thing is

335
00:24:39,082 --> 00:24:41,642
what happens in other stuff like, let's say,

336
00:24:41,841 --> 00:24:46,441
Ethereum, is that you can mint in the in the base chain

337
00:24:46,642 --> 00:24:49,161
and then you transport it to other chains.

338
00:24:49,362 --> 00:24:52,802
We cannot do this in the case of eCash.

339
00:24:53,001 --> 00:24:56,561
Well, I well, actually, we could.

340
00:24:56,761 --> 00:24:57,561
Yeah, we could.

341
00:24:57,761 --> 00:25:02,402
We could do like organelles and stuff and then you but then wouldn't you need to do

342
00:25:02,402 --> 00:25:07,202
another soft work for that to work so that you can transport the assets and then

343
00:25:07,402 --> 00:25:10,242
the the miners understand it?

344
00:25:10,441 --> 00:25:13,122
I don't I don't know, but I don't it depends on how you do it.

345
00:25:13,321 --> 00:25:14,161
I don't think so, though.

346
00:25:14,362 --> 00:25:16,041
Yeah, I think you could.

347
00:25:16,242 --> 00:25:19,922
The same way that you have USDT.

348
00:25:20,122 --> 00:25:26,082
On both eCash and Solana, you could have it on both BitAssets and

349
00:25:26,281 --> 00:25:27,881
Thunder also, I think.

350
00:25:27,922 --> 00:25:29,601
I don't see why you wouldn't be able to.

351
00:25:29,802 --> 00:25:31,362
It depends on how people set it up.

352
00:25:31,561 --> 00:25:32,922
Yeah,

353
00:25:33,122 --> 00:25:38,242
that would be the case for like if someone wants to wrap it, right?

354
00:25:38,441 --> 00:25:41,281
Yeah, so you could you can always go the other way where you say,

355
00:25:41,482 --> 00:25:45,802
so, for example, everyone has to run an L1 node at first,

356
00:25:46,001 --> 00:25:49,001
then they run the L2 node on top of it.

357
00:25:49,001 --> 00:25:50,001
So they run BitAssets.

358
00:25:50,001 --> 00:25:52,802
And then you could someone could theoretically have something where they

359
00:25:53,001 --> 00:26:00,122
must run L1, Thunder and BitAssets and they've plus a fourth thing.

360
00:26:00,321 --> 00:26:03,522
And so you can then, like, have some some bigger things.

361
00:26:03,721 --> 00:26:06,122
You can always go the other way.

362
00:26:06,402 --> 00:26:09,881
So I think that it should work out just fine, I think, I would think.

363
00:26:10,082 --> 00:26:11,601
That's my guess.

364
00:26:12,802 --> 00:26:16,561
For USDT, it could, I think.

365
00:26:16,761 --> 00:26:18,682
But then.

366
00:26:20,122 --> 00:26:24,761
The thing is, what I'm imagining is that on launch,

367
00:26:25,001 --> 00:26:30,161
someone could do like wrap the USDT on, let's say, elements, right?

368
00:26:30,362 --> 00:26:33,561
And then they will also have to do it on BitAssets.

369
00:26:33,761 --> 00:26:40,522
But then I'm not sure because like elements, you could theoretically do like

370
00:26:40,721 --> 00:26:47,041
DeFi stuff and on BitAssets, you could do like, well, everyday payments.

371
00:26:47,242 --> 00:26:49,841
It's separate liquidity, right?

372
00:26:50,041 --> 00:26:53,482
And I don't know, just just just rambling,

373
00:26:53,682 --> 00:26:57,082
because we know how big of a of a use case that is.

374
00:26:57,281 --> 00:26:58,761
So I wanted an answer for that.

375
00:26:58,962 --> 00:27:00,321
So.

376
00:27:01,122 --> 00:27:03,402
Well, I think this is the important thing

377
00:27:03,601 --> 00:27:06,881
that we're trying to get to is the new the first dry run,

378
00:27:07,082 --> 00:27:11,601
which is to say we currently have Signet, we have had different versions of stuff

379
00:27:11,601 --> 00:27:15,402
that was called like Forknet and RegTestMode, we have various test coins.

380
00:27:15,601 --> 00:27:22,441
This will be a new like public test as if the eCash fork happened

381
00:27:22,601 --> 00:27:24,561
yesterday or something like that.

382
00:27:24,761 --> 00:27:31,362
So that will give us all an opportunity to see all the chaos unfold

383
00:27:31,561 --> 00:27:33,561
as if it was the real eCash.

384
00:27:33,761 --> 00:27:37,402
But with it being understood that this is a test net

385
00:27:37,601 --> 00:27:40,682
with like coins that are not supposed to be worth

386
00:27:40,881 --> 00:27:44,482
money because the new eCash will replace it.

387
00:27:44,682 --> 00:27:46,881
And we plan to do a few of these.

388
00:27:47,082 --> 00:27:49,682
So when we do that, then many of these

389
00:27:49,682 --> 00:27:54,601
theoretical questions will be brought to an abrupt end because it will just be like,

390
00:27:54,802 --> 00:27:58,761
oh, people will have an actual thing and then you'll be able to see for yourself.

391
00:27:58,761 --> 00:27:59,721
Hey, did it work?

392
00:27:59,922 --> 00:28:02,161
And if it works there, it will work on the real eCash.

393
00:28:02,362 --> 00:28:04,642
So not that I think of it.

394
00:28:04,841 --> 00:28:08,522
Maybe it's not a big problem, especially because this thing will start small.

395
00:28:08,522 --> 00:28:08,761
Right.

396
00:28:08,962 --> 00:28:10,922
So let's say

397
00:28:11,122 --> 00:28:13,802
we start getting users like one year in or something.

398
00:28:14,001 --> 00:28:15,482
So

399
00:28:15,962 --> 00:28:21,802
we can, if we see actually a large influx of users, we can, for one,

400
00:28:22,001 --> 00:28:25,402
we can make a new Drivechain if there is actual demand.

401
00:28:25,601 --> 00:28:31,201
But also I think I saw something about, does Thunder have a growing block size?

402
00:28:31,401 --> 00:28:32,841
Is it a fixed block size?

403
00:28:33,041 --> 00:28:34,242
What is it?

404
00:28:34,442 --> 00:28:35,242
It does grow.

405
00:28:35,442 --> 00:28:36,802
Yes.

406
00:28:37,641 --> 00:28:40,442
I haven't seen the details of like how does it grow?

407
00:28:40,641 --> 00:28:42,721
Like if demand comes.

408
00:28:43,562 --> 00:28:45,322
I can't exactly remember myself.

409
00:28:45,322 --> 00:28:48,322
It's been so many years, but it's something like starts at eight megabytes

410
00:28:48,322 --> 00:28:49,802
and then it goes to eight hundred megabytes.

411
00:28:50,002 --> 00:28:51,682
It's something like that.

412
00:28:51,882 --> 00:28:54,442
Geometrically growing over like ten years or something.

413
00:28:54,641 --> 00:28:57,482
So that it's I don't remember if that's what it is, but it's something like that.

414
00:28:57,682 --> 00:29:00,242
The point is, it would be much more than

415
00:29:00,442 --> 00:29:04,961
and then if that one runs out, you just have Thunder two.

416
00:29:05,161 --> 00:29:07,682
So you have lots of options.

417
00:29:07,882 --> 00:29:08,521
You see what I mean?

418
00:29:08,521 --> 00:29:12,961
So you have it's great because you just have one that's set in stone.

419
00:29:13,161 --> 00:29:16,161
Then if that one really fills up and there's absolutely no space,

420
00:29:16,362 --> 00:29:17,362
you can just do Thunder two.

421
00:29:17,562 --> 00:29:23,041
Now, Thunder two could have a fresh eight going to eight hundred or it could have

422
00:29:23,041 --> 00:29:26,002
whatever, it could just start with 60 megabytes and go to whatever,

423
00:29:26,002 --> 00:29:28,002
six terabytes or something over five years.

424
00:29:28,201 --> 00:29:31,161
So you have a completely different each each time.

425
00:29:31,362 --> 00:29:35,322
You can kind of right size it and kind of, you know, whatever.

426
00:29:35,482 --> 00:29:41,802
Well, one thing I think about is like it's a bit like sharding, but in a different way.

427
00:29:42,002 --> 00:29:43,562
So

428
00:29:43,762 --> 00:29:49,442
you know how these chains have the concept of sharding and Drivechain is a is a kind

429
00:29:49,641 --> 00:29:52,002
of a different way of doing it.

430
00:29:52,201 --> 00:29:54,922
Everyone, the sidechain community, myself,

431
00:29:55,122 --> 00:29:58,081
we invented all this long before there even was an Ethereum.

432
00:29:58,281 --> 00:30:02,002
They stole the sharding word and idea from us.

433
00:30:02,201 --> 00:30:03,721
Except this is worse.

434
00:30:04,081 --> 00:30:05,721
I know it doesn't make any sense.

435
00:30:05,922 --> 00:30:08,442
Yeah. Welcome to my world.

436
00:30:09,882 --> 00:30:14,242
This this BitAssets also grow the block size.

437
00:30:14,442 --> 00:30:16,041
Yes, it does.

438
00:30:16,041 --> 00:30:17,682
But I also can't remember what it is.

439
00:30:17,682 --> 00:30:20,961
But you see, this is something we can easily tinker with like at the last minute,

440
00:30:21,161 --> 00:30:25,362
like before a month before you decide it's a good question,

441
00:30:25,562 --> 00:30:29,762
because I think with assets, you're much more going for like the degen

442
00:30:29,961 --> 00:30:31,882
pumped out fun ordinals.

443
00:30:32,081 --> 00:30:33,401
Yeah, that's the idea.

444
00:30:34,401 --> 00:30:36,002
But yeah, there's a bunch of legitimate

445
00:30:36,201 --> 00:30:40,802
there's a bunch of totally legitimate uses of these these assets.

446
00:30:41,002 --> 00:30:42,601
But not to say that the other things are not.

447
00:30:42,802 --> 00:30:46,482
But they're kind of those are like frivolities.

448
00:30:46,682 --> 00:30:51,521
And yeah, this I list I have a big piece of writing about this

449
00:30:51,721 --> 00:30:55,362
called BitAssets that people can read like, OK, yeah, all this stuff about like

450
00:30:55,562 --> 00:30:59,201
there's what they call the the proportional goods.

451
00:30:59,401 --> 00:31:04,081
So like anything with like a we have stocks and bonds,

452
00:31:04,281 --> 00:31:06,562
anything where it matters, you know,

453
00:31:06,762 --> 00:31:09,401
with the stock, it matters what percent of the company you own.

454
00:31:09,601 --> 00:31:11,802
So digital scarcity is very important.

455
00:31:12,002 --> 00:31:14,682
Anything with collectibles.

456
00:31:14,882 --> 00:31:20,961
So I have it written out there for anyone who cares to

457
00:31:21,161 --> 00:31:23,041
read about that.

458
00:31:23,762 --> 00:31:29,562
I just wanted to say that I think you're you're going to ban most of your users

459
00:31:29,762 --> 00:31:33,601
or potential users, rather, via complexity.

460
00:31:33,802 --> 00:31:38,401
Download this run node one, node two, whatever.

461
00:31:38,601 --> 00:31:39,601
I'm sorry, man.

462
00:31:39,802 --> 00:31:44,802
You're you're like every time I hear you say something like that, I'm like, OK,

463
00:31:45,002 --> 00:31:48,482
there's 10 more percent of your potential user base gone.

464
00:31:48,482 --> 00:31:51,682
Well, let me ask you this, have you run our software?

465
00:31:51,882 --> 00:31:56,322
No, but I probably won't just because it sounds very, very complex.

466
00:31:56,521 --> 00:31:59,762
I should just be able to install everything.

467
00:31:59,961 --> 00:32:01,161
Sounds complex.

468
00:32:01,362 --> 00:32:06,401
Everything sounds complex when the first day, you know, like to a child.

469
00:32:06,601 --> 00:32:08,322
That's why Harry Potter is so successful.

470
00:32:08,521 --> 00:32:10,482
The first miners on the Bitcoin network,

471
00:32:10,682 --> 00:32:14,882
it was a fucking download and install associated with the Bitcoin network.

472
00:32:15,841 --> 00:32:19,802
It was a fucking download and install associate and go.

473
00:32:20,002 --> 00:32:21,562
Yeah, but that's what it is with us, too.

474
00:32:21,762 --> 00:32:24,682
That's why it's that's why I asked you just down the window.

475
00:32:24,882 --> 00:32:28,161
It's like a button like the description.

476
00:32:28,362 --> 00:32:30,682
I'm just saying it's adversarial here.

477
00:32:30,882 --> 00:32:32,081
I was just saying that.

478
00:32:32,281 --> 00:32:36,841
Well, yeah, we have to he's asking like a

479
00:32:37,041 --> 00:32:40,922
a question about the long run equilibrium of like these two different.

480
00:32:41,122 --> 00:32:43,201
So it's a little bit of a different type.

481
00:32:43,442 --> 00:32:45,762
But what the user sees is they just see

482
00:32:45,961 --> 00:32:49,562
their window and then there's a sidechains tab and then there's a button for

483
00:32:49,762 --> 00:32:53,482
BitAssets because download, it's it's less complicated than trying

484
00:32:53,682 --> 00:32:58,482
to play the, you know, Halo Master Chief collection or something like that.

485
00:32:58,682 --> 00:33:02,562
OK, well, I'm your desktop computer.

486
00:33:02,762 --> 00:33:06,401
Do you have a block size limit?

487
00:33:07,482 --> 00:33:11,242
With each different chain has its own block size limit,

488
00:33:11,362 --> 00:33:14,841
but over all the chains, since there can be an unlimited number

489
00:33:15,041 --> 00:33:18,242
of chains and each chain could have a very high limit,

490
00:33:18,442 --> 00:33:22,521
it's sort of the best of both worlds where in practice there kind of is no limit.

491
00:33:22,721 --> 00:33:25,002
Well, you couldn't you kind of get around

492
00:33:25,201 --> 00:33:29,201
the necessity for having multiple chains if you just had like no limit on.

493
00:33:29,401 --> 00:33:30,201
Well, yes, of course.

494
00:33:30,401 --> 00:33:33,242
But that's that's not a desirable thing at all.

495
00:33:33,442 --> 00:33:36,562
The limit is what keeps the node costs down.

496
00:33:36,762 --> 00:33:40,521
Now, the limit is what keeps the use down.

497
00:33:40,721 --> 00:33:43,601
And because like the the the more limited

498
00:33:43,802 --> 00:33:47,682
the space related all it is and the more expensive it is.

499
00:33:47,882 --> 00:33:52,721
I mean, I see value in having a load, no cost, but it's separately.

500
00:33:52,922 --> 00:33:55,482
I was just wondering, I don't know that the software exists

501
00:33:55,682 --> 00:33:59,721
currently for like auditing bundles that like each sidechain where you like,

502
00:33:59,922 --> 00:34:04,601
if you're a miner or just somebody who runs a sidechain to be able to validate

503
00:34:04,802 --> 00:34:09,002
that all submitted bundles are kind of like accurate, like just visually.

504
00:34:09,161 --> 00:34:09,601
I don't know.

505
00:34:09,802 --> 00:34:12,521
I mean, that would be something that I guess I would make.

506
00:34:12,721 --> 00:34:15,081
I cared more about this in the we had

507
00:34:15,281 --> 00:34:18,562
the QT version of the software, which was super, super good.

508
00:34:18,762 --> 00:34:21,081
So I really, really liked and it has that.

509
00:34:21,281 --> 00:34:22,841
But I'm just going to kind of go over.

510
00:34:23,041 --> 00:34:24,682
This is an interesting topic.

511
00:34:24,882 --> 00:34:28,201
It was the full node will always compute the correct bundle hash,

512
00:34:28,401 --> 00:34:34,242
which is to say it summarizes everything over the past several months into one hash.

513
00:34:34,442 --> 00:34:35,922
And

514
00:34:36,362 --> 00:34:38,362
so every full node always knows what these are.

515
00:34:38,362 --> 00:34:40,322
But it also puts the hash, which is the same.

516
00:34:40,521 --> 00:34:42,482
It's an unchanged hash for like three months.

517
00:34:42,682 --> 00:34:44,161
It puts them in each header.

518
00:34:44,362 --> 00:34:50,401
So if you just run an SPV mode, each of the chains, you have a very,

519
00:34:50,601 --> 00:34:55,562
very, very reliable glimpse into what the hashes should be.

520
00:34:55,762 --> 00:34:59,482
And this is even without doing any L2 full nodes

521
00:34:59,682 --> 00:35:02,362
because they have to lie in a very complicated way.

522
00:35:02,562 --> 00:35:08,041
They have to like lie and then mine the L2 blocks containing

523
00:35:08,122 --> 00:35:12,242
the invalid hash, which all of the L2, the entire L2 network will immediately

524
00:35:12,442 --> 00:35:16,002
reject even before it downloads any of those blocks.

525
00:35:16,201 --> 00:35:20,122
So these are that's sort of the.

526
00:35:20,322 --> 00:35:21,362
I didn't quite follow.

527
00:35:21,562 --> 00:35:24,122
How how does it immediately reject it on the sidechain?

528
00:35:24,322 --> 00:35:26,562
OK, we're talking remember the L2.

529
00:35:26,762 --> 00:35:30,721
Maybe an interesting way of thinking about it is you imagine that you're playing some

530
00:35:30,922 --> 00:35:34,641
kind of game and I don't know what kind of game this would be.

531
00:35:34,841 --> 00:35:37,322
Trying to imagine like,

532
00:35:37,482 --> 00:35:40,682
you know, I don't want to go too weird with these metaphors, but like,

533
00:35:40,682 --> 00:35:43,682
you know, Warcraft three, some of the units are invisible and some

534
00:35:43,682 --> 00:35:47,322
of the units have true sight, they can see the invisible units by other units can't.

535
00:35:47,521 --> 00:35:50,482
And so it's kind of like the full nodes.

536
00:35:50,682 --> 00:35:57,201
They they have to they have the burden of processing all the data.

537
00:35:57,401 --> 00:35:59,841
This is the thing that CREF 23 doesn't care about at all.

538
00:36:00,041 --> 00:36:05,081
This the cost of processing and serving, retaining all the data.

539
00:36:05,242 --> 00:36:08,081
But so they're like this expensive,

540
00:36:08,281 --> 00:36:13,161
slow moving unit, but they know immediately once any single thing,

541
00:36:13,362 --> 00:36:17,242
if one byte is wrong somewhere, if one transaction is wrong

542
00:36:17,442 --> 00:36:22,362
and especially they know of the bundle, the bundle is wrong or the bundle hash is

543
00:36:22,562 --> 00:36:25,041
wrong. OK, does that make sense so far?

544
00:36:25,242 --> 00:36:26,682
So the L2, they know everything.

545
00:36:26,882 --> 00:36:29,002
Yeah. Now,

546
00:36:29,201 --> 00:36:32,882
separately, you have the L1 people who only see

547
00:36:32,882 --> 00:36:38,122
the bundle hash and how much mining work is on it.

548
00:36:38,322 --> 00:36:41,442
They don't see the they don't know.

549
00:36:41,641 --> 00:36:43,641
So they're trying to guess.

550
00:36:43,841 --> 00:36:46,401
But the issue is.

551
00:36:46,601 --> 00:36:52,242
It's very hard for the for you to get anything about merely proposing the wrong

552
00:36:52,442 --> 00:36:56,641
bundle hash or even giving it a lot of work, because it's not until you give it

553
00:36:56,841 --> 00:37:01,442
the full three months of work that it pays out, the attack pays out for you.

554
00:37:01,642 --> 00:37:03,162
So you have to worry about not only how

555
00:37:03,362 --> 00:37:07,642
attentive our people are now, but how might they react if they

556
00:37:07,841 --> 00:37:10,921
suspect that something is up and they can look into it at any time,

557
00:37:11,122 --> 00:37:15,561
whereas regular time they're just lazily doing nothing and expecting it to work.

558
00:37:15,762 --> 00:37:18,362
And it does work. So you have your cake and eat it, too.

559
00:37:18,561 --> 00:37:23,042
But then they think like, oh, so this is like, OK, so that's the setup.

560
00:37:23,242 --> 00:37:26,762
Now, when I say the sidechain headers,

561
00:37:26,961 --> 00:37:30,122
the blockchain is made basically of this link of hashes.

562
00:37:30,122 --> 00:37:33,762
But the hashes are not of the blocks themselves.

563
00:37:33,961 --> 00:37:35,961
In Bitcoin, as you may know,

564
00:37:36,162 --> 00:37:40,561
in Bitcoin, you have these heads, 80 byte headers, each header contains like

565
00:37:40,762 --> 00:37:46,042
conversion number hash of the previous block, hash of the Merkle root of this

566
00:37:46,242 --> 00:37:50,601
block, you know, and some other stuff, timestamp, nonce, whatever.

567
00:37:50,801 --> 00:37:53,282
So it's this tiny, tiny 80 byte header,

568
00:37:53,482 --> 00:37:57,882
very small, and there's only four point four megabytes per year.

569
00:37:58,081 --> 00:38:01,522
And so they're very easy for everyone to download.

570
00:38:01,721 --> 00:38:03,002
And

571
00:38:03,201 --> 00:38:04,961
they have the Merkle root,

572
00:38:05,162 --> 00:38:08,642
they have basically the hash of the transactions of the block.

573
00:38:08,841 --> 00:38:11,762
Basically, I'm skipping over some details.

574
00:38:11,961 --> 00:38:14,522
OK, so the L2 nodes have this as well,

575
00:38:14,721 --> 00:38:19,081
but in their header is the hash of the bundle.

576
00:38:19,282 --> 00:38:20,762
Now,

577
00:38:21,482 --> 00:38:26,921
if you already, before all this happened, if you had already downloaded.

578
00:38:27,081 --> 00:38:31,362
SPV L2 node, this is again, this is like a four point,

579
00:38:31,561 --> 00:38:36,122
this is not quite, but it's basically four point four megabytes per year.

580
00:38:36,321 --> 00:38:38,642
The bundle is included in what?

581
00:38:38,841 --> 00:38:42,681
It's in the header, the sidechain header.

582
00:38:42,882 --> 00:38:44,201
OK, right.

583
00:38:44,402 --> 00:38:49,201
So if you already have your SPV, we already we already established a long

584
00:38:49,402 --> 00:38:54,081
time ago, the nodes know instantly that something whenever anything goes wrong.

585
00:38:54,282 --> 00:38:58,801
But if you download SPV sidechain node,

586
00:38:59,002 --> 00:39:01,042
it will also

587
00:39:01,441 --> 00:39:06,321
it will know if the bundle in L1 doesn't match the bundle in the header.

588
00:39:06,522 --> 00:39:09,282
So it will know that those two things are inconsistent.

589
00:39:09,482 --> 00:39:11,162
It won't necessarily know which one is

590
00:39:11,162 --> 00:39:13,921
wrong, because if you think about it, it could go either way.

591
00:39:14,122 --> 00:39:15,882
It could be that someone has just straight

592
00:39:16,081 --> 00:39:23,402
up lying flagrantly in the L1 about what the bundle is and that the SPV

593
00:39:23,561 --> 00:39:27,721
header is the true header.

594
00:39:27,921 --> 00:39:36,282
Or it could be that the the the liar has decided to

595
00:39:36,482 --> 00:39:41,402
lie about what the header is and they are mining fake SPV blocks and that is the

596
00:39:41,402 --> 00:39:44,441
other one, because what will really happen at the end of the day is there will really

597
00:39:44,642 --> 00:39:50,002
be like two headers, two bundle hashes in L1 that are kind of like duking it out.

598
00:39:50,201 --> 00:39:52,961
And so there will always be

599
00:39:52,961 --> 00:39:54,921
spending again.

600
00:39:55,408 --> 00:40:08,688
Not talking exactly, I don't think about that, but if you do so, yeah, you think it would just be very difficult to to create like a false header, in essence, that because it's being committed to on L2.

601
00:40:08,688 --> 00:40:19,008
Yeah, if you want to precisely the headers are very, very easy to check against the so first of all, all the L2 nodes immediately also know if any of the headers are fake.

602
00:40:19,808 --> 00:40:40,928
But faking the header requires effectively paying the security budget. It's not exactly the same as the thermodynamic budget on L1, but it's almost the same because you have to pay the Blind Merged Mining, you have to basically outspend every total amount of fees on each L2 block to make a competing header.

603
00:40:40,928 --> 00:40:48,367
Yeah, I guess I didn't appreciate how important it is to include the bundle hash in the sidechain headers.

604
00:40:48,448 --> 00:41:06,927
Yeah, the header is very expensive to fake. You can fake it, but it's expensive because the whole like if the sidechain is pulling in $10,000 in fees every 10 minutes, then you have to spend like $10,005 to fake the header because the header is like occupying the critical real estate in L1.

605
00:41:07,888 --> 00:41:21,168
Paul, it sounds like you've created a wonderful attack surface for the Federal Reserve, but thank you very much. I wish you the best of luck and you should listen to Coin Metal or I mean the DShift rather. Thank you. Bye.

606
00:41:21,408 --> 00:41:47,247
Okay, thanks. Great. The first of many strange critics we'll see on the space today, I'm sure. But so yeah, the header is difficult to fake and it's expensive to fake and it's super easy to download and check. So this is just a huge asymmetry and it's so that's very helpful.

607
00:41:47,327 --> 00:41:53,088
Is that still something you would recommend somebody to build just like to visually be able to validate, I suppose, like headers?

608
00:41:53,088 --> 00:42:11,568
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in particular, there's no SPV L2 nodes or wallets yet, but certainly the mobile wallet will become that over the next two or three or four weeks. The eCash.com wallet will do that. So then other people will be able to do it as well.

609
00:42:12,447 --> 00:42:36,687
And, you know, people could have like, you know, they could do whatever they want with it. It could be like an infura. That's another thing is that I'm not sure where the comparative advantage lies in terms of like, this is a good idea, but it also raises the specter of like free riding.

610
00:42:36,768 --> 00:42:48,848
But yeah, there could definitely be a service where that person just runs all the full nodes. And then they just, this is like what people were asking about last week about, can I just have API access?

611
00:42:49,488 --> 00:42:53,887
Don't you think this will end up happening with chains like Thunder since they have a big block size?

612
00:42:53,887 --> 00:43:08,128
Yes, of course. It will. That's exactly right. Like anything with a node cost is very inexpensive. There's no reason to do it. So no one will do it. But when other people will push the envelope, there will be like a Solana.

613
00:43:08,128 --> 00:43:32,848
People will keep pushing the envelope until it breaks, I think. So there are people eventually be proposing bizarre sidechains that have like 10 terabyte blocks and stuff that that will probably just not stop work. They'll probably stop working at some point. But while they or maybe even completely centralized chains, we kind of already have that. That's kind of like basically a lot of what we already have with like stuff like base and whatever.

614
00:43:33,568 --> 00:43:55,488
The whole point of the sidechain idea is that all these weird experiments would have been Bitcoin experiments. Of course, now there'll be eCash experiments instead of Bitcoin. But yeah, this is just a huge cultural derangement in BTC to reject this sidechain idea, which is like a very, very important idea. And we'll just let everyone just do whatever they want.

615
00:43:55,488 --> 00:44:16,128
And it would all be Bitcoin projects paying Bitcoin fees. And so unfortunately, we're not going to get that in BTC anytime soon. Instead, we're going to get crazy conversations about 110 and whatever, whatever else. But anyway, we got a hunter beast with a hand up. So yes, Mr. Beast.

616
00:44:17,087 --> 00:44:43,967
Paul, I just got to say, I love it when you talk about Bitcoin, the way you talk about the header. You understand it so well, and you explain it in such concise language. It really is beautiful to hear. Honestly, I would probably pay good sats for like, almost ASMR like Paul Sztorc.

617
00:44:43,967 --> 00:45:00,608
Explaining Bitcoin just for hours, you know, just in your, the way you have like such a soft, calm, confident demeanor. It is like, just so cool.

618
00:45:00,608 --> 00:45:10,608
Well, thank you. Hey, there is a YouTube. If you go to drivechain.info, there's like a huge YouTube playlist. It's like 36 hours long. So I don't know.

619
00:45:11,328 --> 00:45:33,487
That is so cool. Thank you for that. Regardless, I, the question I have is, it's interesting that you're like hard forking the UTXO set, you'll have a chain split, and you'll have basically probably a lot of inactive UTXOs.

620
00:45:34,448 --> 00:45:55,328
And I'm wondering, like, is this just like a moat to sort of build a ecosystem where you have like kind of full control, and then you can return to the CUSF? Or have you walked away from Bitcoin software consensus entirely?

621
00:45:56,288 --> 00:46:08,767
I think it's unfortunately, the two are related. So it's kind of like a pincer movement, where you have to come at them from the left and the right at the same time and crush them like a vice.

622
00:46:09,728 --> 00:46:28,848
Which is to say, if we didn't, if we didn't pursue CUSF, and we didn't pursue honorable soft fork activation in BTC, that would weaken the legitimacy of the hard fork, because we would say, oh, well, they say, why are we doing this when there's the better way?

623
00:46:29,807 --> 00:46:43,087
But similarly, if we didn't do the hard fork, I don't think anyone would actually care enough to look into it, they would never, they would just keep kicking the can down the road on the soft fork to CUSF. So I think that would also be useless.

624
00:46:43,087 --> 00:47:06,048
So it's kind of like when you grip something with a hand with an opposable thumb and the four fingers, and it's like, which is more important, the thumb or the four fingers? And it's like, well, really, both are important. And it's also important that they kind of oppose each other. Because that is where you get the grip from, actually. So I think it's really, we really need both ingredients. Although I admit, it's a bizarre explanation.

625
00:47:06,048 --> 00:47:28,048
You're always welcome to grip my chain, Paul. You just have such beautiful language when you talk about all these things. Regardless, so then you're basically going to do both, like a hard fork for eCash and also CUSF?

626
00:47:28,048 --> 00:47:56,048
No, the CUSF is not a hard fork. CUSF is just, that's just out there right now. People go to BIP300QSYF.com. They can. We have one for OP_CAT. And I think we have one for CTV also. I'm not sure. I think so. So these are just different ways of activating a soft fork on Bitcoin that only uses 51. It's the Core Untouched Soft Fork. So you don't change any lines of code in Bitcoin. You just need 51% hash rate.

627
00:47:57,048 --> 00:48:10,048
And the fact that even these cannot succeed just proves how crazy everyone is in BTC. And that it's basically kind of doomed over in BTC.

628
00:48:11,048 --> 00:48:18,048
Oh, sorry. I guess I don't understand yet. Have you given up on Bitcoin or not?

629
00:48:19,048 --> 00:48:38,048
Well, personally, I think that the chances of Bitcoin waking up and saying that we should do all these soft forks is very low. Because they've been around for a while. They've been useful for a while. They've been harmless for a while.

630
00:48:39,048 --> 00:49:00,048
You got all these projects that are really good. And there's been no progress towards any of them except for 1.10, which is like one of the least useful. It's interesting that people are actually doing something. But I think it's very unlikely to work and doesn't really help.

631
00:49:00,048 --> 00:49:09,048
I don't know if I want to go into your space and talk 1.10 without your permission, but I'd be happy to present the Steelman case for it if you'd be interested.

632
00:49:10,048 --> 00:49:12,048
Yeah, we can talk about 1.10. That's perfectly fine. Let's talk about it.

633
00:49:13,048 --> 00:49:31,048
Okay, sure. So I think my strongest argument for 1.10 is that there is a game theoretic advantage you get whenever you tighten protocol consensus in such a way that makes the protocol more defensible.

634
00:49:32,048 --> 00:49:46,048
Unfortunately, the 1.10 people, they're talking a lot about arbitrary data. But what's so ironic about OutReturn is that it is the least computationally intensive.

635
00:49:47,048 --> 00:49:53,048
Yeah, exactly. Putting JPEGs on the blockchain actually reduces the spam, so to speak.

636
00:49:53,048 --> 00:50:05,048
Yeah, well, at least in OutReturn, because it's not discounted, right? And also it's easily printable and it's unspendable. You can safely ignore it. That's like the whole point. And that's cool, right?

637
00:50:05,048 --> 00:50:29,048
But there is also, it's funny, by restricting the script pubkey to 34 bytes, that really does help mitigate a larger class of attacks around structured data that could be used to construct a quadratic signature verification attack, also known as a poison block attack or PBA.

638
00:50:29,048 --> 00:50:58,048
And I'd be curious of your thoughts on, like, if you understand, you know, or if you've heard about this kind of attack, and if that might be sort of like a good steel man case for like, if you tighten protocol consensus in such a way that makes the chain more defensible against all sorts of attacks, including ones that could knock your node offline for 25 minutes while it's crunching on these legacies of data.

639
00:51:00,048 --> 00:51:25,048
Like, you know, I'm curious, like, could that be a steelman argument for activation of 110? Like, essentially being like a, a, basically capitalizing on a game theoretic advantage for sort of the more defensible chain is the one that is more likely to survive.

640
00:51:26,048 --> 00:51:51,048
Yeah, okay. So first of all, the quadratic hashing problem, this was around a long time ago. And in fact, one of the motivations for SegWit was trying to address it, in fact, and there was even a block in, I think, like 2014 or something that where someone consolidated a bunch of small UTXOs when the network wasn't being used.

641
00:51:52,048 --> 00:52:05,048
And they just passively created a block that took a very long time. I don't remember how long, maybe 15 seconds. It wasn't so bad. But it's kind of like accidentally happened a few times that people have made blocks that are very, very hard to validate.

642
00:52:06,048 --> 00:52:33,048
I think we really want to, it would be much easier if we were going to, you know, you've done a good job steelmanning the argument. But in this case, steelmanning is almost like, this is what Luke has been saying, is that it's this non-monetary stuff on the chain that will destroy Bitcoin and make it like an altcoin like Ethereum or whatever, blah, blah, blah.

643
00:52:34,048 --> 00:52:45,048
They're not saying like, okay, we're doing this to keep the node costs down. Because as you and I already said, actually, the JPEGs keep the node costs further down than the real transactions do.

644
00:52:46,048 --> 00:52:49,048
As long as they're in OP_RETURN. If they're abusing the witness, then that's a different story.

645
00:52:50,048 --> 00:53:03,048
But this is exactly why people were encouraged to use OP_RETURN because it's prunable and everything. And that's why they said, oh, put your extra data here instead of using it in like extra bare multisig.

646
00:53:04,048 --> 00:53:13,048
There are other arguments around that. But in a way, I feel like that's like a Bailey and the Mott is more like structured data, not arbitrary data.

647
00:53:13,048 --> 00:53:30,048
Well, I think so. But it's a very important point about the OP_RETURN because it speaks to this case where it says, okay, people said it's already possible for people to embed this data in the bare multisig, for example.

648
00:53:30,048 --> 00:53:46,048
So we'll encourage them to use OP_RETURN. And that's better for everyone involved because it's better for the nodes. So it's a case of meeting a problem and trying to do the best thing for everyone.

649
00:53:47,048 --> 00:53:54,048
And now we have Luke and whatever they're doing, they're going backwards. They're saying, well, we're going to take everything by force. And if you don't agree with us, then you're…

650
00:53:55,048 --> 00:54:07,048
I totally get that. I just think the OP_RETURN is a straw man and the steel man is structured data. Like structured data attacks, like quadratic signature verification and poison block attacks, essentially.

651
00:54:08,048 --> 00:54:23,048
Yeah, but it's an interesting point. But if Luke and Mechanic and those people were talking about that, I think it would be a completely different conversation. They would be just saying, this is about stopping node denial of service attack.

652
00:54:24,048 --> 00:54:28,048
I know. I'm trying to get them to talk about that because I think that they should absolutely be talking about that.

653
00:54:29,048 --> 00:54:49,048
It's a much stronger argument. But the thing is, we don't live in a world where people denial of service attack the network that way. We don't see these blocks. And one reason is because if you really wanted to do that attack, you'd kind of have to mind the block yourself.

654
00:54:50,048 --> 00:55:01,048
And then you'd have to do something else. But the attack doesn't really do very much. So it's like you've mined a block and you put all these transactions into it and it takes a long time for people to validate it. But then…

655
00:55:03,048 --> 00:55:05,048
Just what is the block size?

656
00:55:06,048 --> 00:55:28,048
Yeah. Yes, we have a J25. So yeah, the problem is that what they want is what they're not going to get. They want to keep JPEGs off the blockchain, but people will still be able to put JPEGs on the blockchain.

657
00:55:29,048 --> 00:55:43,048
They want to protect the node costs from spam transactions, but they're also still going to get those spam transactions. So that's part of why it's deranged. I think it's important. If I could just finish my thought.

658
00:55:43,048 --> 00:56:00,048
I think it's quite relevant that they don't seem to have any idea that their actions won't get them what they want. So let's say someone is saying, oh, I need to make it to the post office before it closes because I have to send my letter or whatever. This is a fake example.

659
00:56:00,048 --> 00:56:23,048
And then they decide to park their car and run away from the post office. Well, you would just be thinking like, well, these people are just crazy. And that's kind of more important at the end of the day than whether or not it also can stop certain types of denial of service attack against a node.

660
00:56:23,048 --> 00:56:30,048
So I think that it actually is relevant that they're so crazy and they're so bad at getting what they want.

661
00:56:54,048 --> 00:57:10,048
I think there might be a way to do a sort of like archival format based on stream verification and remote proof of possession to essentially create like decentralized storage markets that quantify replication factor.

662
00:57:10,048 --> 00:57:37,048
And regardless of that, I just wanted to create like kind of a decentralized storage network for storage markets that would like be able to allow Bitcoin node runners to sort of strategically capitalize on their spare storage capacity and essentially allow people to store data for other people.

663
00:57:37,048 --> 00:57:57,048
And either in a mutual aid scenario where you just swap storage for no monetary value and you just mutually confirm each other's data so that you have multiple copies. Or you also just like kind of like pay for it over time. And that sort of like creates a...

664
00:57:57,048 --> 00:58:11,048
Well, there have been these ideas. I'm not sure whatever became of them. But there was Filecoin. That was pretty big. I think that was it was like...

665
00:58:11,048 --> 00:58:16,048
Yeah, I thought Filecoin was like the biggest, but it was also the worst or something. I don't know.

666
00:58:16,048 --> 00:58:42,048
It's so bad. You needed a GPU to accelerate your SNARK proofs along with multiple petabytes of HDDs and also like terabytes of SSDs because they have a terrible write amplification for embedding the SNARK proofs inside of like BLS signatures that you're interleaved into the car files for the various aspects of...

667
00:58:43,048 --> 00:59:06,048
It's been about five years since I worked on the protocol. But back when I was working on it, they had basically proof of stake that was gated by what they called proof of replication and proof of space time. And essentially it was probably like a Peewee Herman's breakfast machine of a blockchain, if I'm being honest. It was like a Rube Goldberg machine.

668
00:59:07,048 --> 00:59:30,048
Yeah, this is exactly what we don't want. Instead, we want to say, listen, we'll take care of the bridge, the sidechain part, because we'll have 300 sidechains. Then you being the sidechain developer, we'll take care of finding blocks and deposits withdrawals. You just do whatever new thing you want and don't reinvent the wheel with all this other stuff.

669
00:59:30,048 --> 00:59:47,048
So in other words, I think this would be a phenomenal candidate for L2 drivechain. And then again, once it's built, once it will work with any BIP300 chain. So it would work on eCash, it would work on BTC.

670
00:59:47,048 --> 01:00:00,048
I always thought this idea was really neat. I really like David Vorek a lot, and he did SIA, and he had this cool thing where you could just type in 12 words and it would theoretically recover your whole file system.

671
01:00:01,232 --> 01:00:04,232
So it was a fantastic, fantastic idea.

672
01:00:04,232 --> 01:00:05,232
That's a good idea.

673
01:00:05,232 --> 01:00:10,232
He had it and got it to work at some point, which is my understanding.

674
01:00:10,232 --> 01:00:16,232
Yeah, SIA was interesting. I was kind of quibbled with their implementation, but not more their design.

675
01:00:16,232 --> 01:00:20,232
Storage is also weird in other ways, but yeah.

676
01:00:20,232 --> 01:00:23,232
Yeah, it was trying to be a DAO or something.

677
01:00:24,232 --> 01:00:37,232
But really what I wanted was just to give people an easy way to sort of avoid putting data on chain because it's cheaper and probably more durable and could scale better and all of that.

678
01:00:38,232 --> 01:00:41,232
So what I did was I basically forked ORD.

679
01:00:41,232 --> 01:00:52,232
And I want to have like a RPC-compatible API with, well, REST and CLI compatible with existing users of ORD,

680
01:00:52,232 --> 01:01:00,232
except it goes into my Carbonado decentralized storage format and the V2 version of it, which is much harder.

681
01:01:01,232 --> 01:01:08,232
And then there's also probably layering on maybe an RGB evolution based on RGB12.

682
01:01:08,232 --> 01:01:19,232
So it's like chasing after the ideal, essentially, of off-chain storage and transfer that essentially scales whatever people are using ORDNLs for.

683
01:01:20,232 --> 01:01:25,232
And I would love to also support BIP300 because I love the idea around...

684
01:01:25,232 --> 01:01:34,232
I like how elegantly Drivechain solves the problem of bridging in ways that BitVM is such nonsense.

685
01:01:36,232 --> 01:01:39,232
I would literally rather use a hard fork.

686
01:01:39,232 --> 01:01:41,232
Damn, it's a hard fork though.

687
01:01:41,232 --> 01:01:44,232
But regardless, I prefer it.

688
01:01:44,232 --> 01:01:46,232
I prefer that approach than BitVM.

689
01:01:47,232 --> 01:01:48,232
Okay, well, hey, thanks very much.

690
01:01:48,232 --> 01:01:57,232
And of course, Robin Linus, creator of BitVM, he also said that he only invented this as a hacky workaround because we didn't have BIP300.

691
01:01:57,232 --> 01:02:03,232
And then he's expressed the opinion many times that BIP300 is better than BitVM.

692
01:02:04,232 --> 01:02:09,232
But now it's time to move to the next because it's already 3.03.

693
01:02:09,232 --> 01:02:13,232
So let's see if we could get... we had J25 came up.

694
01:02:14,232 --> 01:02:16,232
So let's see if he has anything to say.

695
01:02:17,232 --> 01:02:18,232
Thank you for your time.

696
01:02:18,232 --> 01:02:20,232
Hey, no, great convo.

697
01:02:20,232 --> 01:02:22,232
Yeah, yeah.

698
01:02:22,232 --> 01:02:26,232
Way, way more Debbie talk than I can partake in.

699
01:02:27,232 --> 01:02:28,232
But interesting to learn.

700
01:02:28,232 --> 01:02:31,232
I don't think J25 was able to join.

701
01:02:31,232 --> 01:02:34,232
He requested like twice and I approved.

702
01:02:34,232 --> 01:02:37,232
And then I don't know exactly what happened.

703
01:02:37,232 --> 01:02:38,232
It appeared as if...

704
01:02:38,232 --> 01:02:39,232
He's talking now.

705
01:02:39,232 --> 01:02:40,232
He's good.

706
01:02:40,232 --> 01:02:41,232
Oh, can you hear me?

707
01:02:41,232 --> 01:02:43,232
I can come back real quick if you can't hear me.

708
01:02:43,232 --> 01:02:44,232
I hear you.

709
01:02:44,232 --> 01:02:45,232
I hear you.

710
01:02:45,232 --> 01:02:46,232
Oh, interesting.

711
01:02:46,232 --> 01:02:47,232
That's funny.

712
01:02:47,232 --> 01:02:48,232
I don't think I blocked that.

713
01:02:48,232 --> 01:02:50,232
Yeah, X glitched out and I had to come back up or something.

714
01:02:50,232 --> 01:02:51,232
All right, great.

715
01:02:51,232 --> 01:02:52,232
Thank you.

716
01:02:52,232 --> 01:02:57,232
But yeah, just comments on the 1.10, which is whatever.

717
01:02:57,232 --> 01:02:59,232
If we're moving on, that's fine.

718
01:02:59,232 --> 01:03:06,232
But I just find it a little funny that Luke has put his own arbitrary data just because they're Bible verses.

719
01:03:06,232 --> 01:03:07,232
They're still arbitrary data.

720
01:03:07,232 --> 01:03:12,232
And then the Genesis block literally has arbitrary data.

721
01:03:12,232 --> 01:03:16,232
So if Satoshi didn't want arbitrary data, then why did he put it in there?

722
01:03:16,232 --> 01:03:22,232
Yeah, there is a counter argument to that, that I don't buy at all.

723
01:03:22,232 --> 01:03:23,232
Although it's technically true.

724
01:03:23,232 --> 01:03:24,232
It misses the point.

725
01:03:24,232 --> 01:03:26,232
And who even cares?

726
01:03:26,232 --> 01:03:27,232
It's all nonsense.

727
01:03:27,232 --> 01:03:28,232
But there's actually part...

728
01:03:28,232 --> 01:03:34,232
Okay, part of some of the block must be arbitrary data.

729
01:03:34,232 --> 01:03:36,232
This is a weird way of summarizing it.

730
01:03:36,232 --> 01:03:39,232
But basically that data was going to be arbitrary no matter what.

731
01:03:39,232 --> 01:03:44,232
And it just was like a quirk of...

732
01:03:44,232 --> 01:03:55,232
So it was like since it was arbitrary and it wasn't being used for anything, it wasn't any extra arbitrary to set it to something else.

733
01:03:55,232 --> 01:03:59,232
And that's what happened with the original Genesis block.

734
01:03:59,232 --> 01:04:07,232
So, like, for example, as we were talking about headers earlier, each block has to have the hash of the previous block.

735
01:04:07,232 --> 01:04:12,232
But this is just as an example so you could see what I'm kind of getting at.

736
01:04:12,232 --> 01:04:14,232
The first block doesn't have a previous block.

737
01:04:14,232 --> 01:04:16,232
So that could have been anything.

738
01:04:16,232 --> 01:04:19,232
It could just be a bunch of zeros or it could have been whatever.

739
01:04:19,232 --> 01:04:28,232
So I'm just trying to let you know there's these things, the nonce field and stuff, where it's kind of somewhat arbitrary what it is.

740
01:04:28,232 --> 01:04:32,232
And I'm pretty sure that Luke would say, aha, I only put the prayer verses in.

741
01:04:32,232 --> 01:04:37,232
Those already arbitrary parts, I don't even know if that's true.

742
01:04:37,232 --> 01:04:39,232
It may not be.

743
01:04:39,232 --> 01:04:47,232
I think the whole thing is totally irrelevant anyway because as far as I'm concerned, whoever pays for the block space is the owner.

744
01:04:47,232 --> 01:04:54,232
And we should only gate things that consume the node resources, which this reduces the node resource.

745
01:04:54,232 --> 01:05:00,232
So really you should get a discount on your fees if you put operatron jpegs in the ideal world.

746
01:05:00,232 --> 01:05:04,232
But I'm happy if these people are willing to pay full price.

747
01:05:04,232 --> 01:05:14,232
They are the rightful owner, and it's much better that they do this rather than stitch together a bunch of bare multisig and all sorts of stuff.

748
01:05:14,232 --> 01:05:17,232
But they're just letting you know there is a counter argument.

749
01:05:17,232 --> 01:05:21,232
Luke will have that counter argument ready to go if you come at him with that.

750
01:05:21,232 --> 01:05:24,232
He's going to pull a quick draw.

751
01:05:25,232 --> 01:05:31,232
Anyway, we've got a new person. We have a Mark Alpenblick.

752
01:05:31,232 --> 01:05:34,232
That's cool. Hi there, Paul.

753
01:05:34,232 --> 01:05:39,232
Hello. Just a quick question regarding SegWit.

754
01:05:39,232 --> 01:05:42,232
I mean, obviously, you're reducing the block size.

755
01:05:42,232 --> 01:05:50,232
So the layer one will be transactions only, which I think is great.

756
01:05:51,232 --> 01:05:56,232
But what will happen to the SegWit part of Bitcoin?

757
01:05:56,232 --> 01:06:02,232
Maybe you could kind of concisely explain.

758
01:06:02,232 --> 01:06:06,232
Yeah, we're not like cutting off. So SegWit is a very bizarre upgrade.

759
01:06:06,232 --> 01:06:12,232
So actually, there's like a whole new.

760
01:06:12,232 --> 01:06:15,232
This is really hard to explain, but it's like before SegWit.

761
01:06:15,232 --> 01:06:18,232
There's just one block and then they block hashes.

762
01:06:18,232 --> 01:06:25,232
You hash the transactions in it in this Merkle tree and you end up with one hash that covers all of the transactions in a block.

763
01:06:25,232 --> 01:06:28,232
And that goes into the header.

764
01:06:28,232 --> 01:06:32,232
But after SegWit, there's really like three blockchains like in parallel.

765
01:06:32,232 --> 01:06:35,232
There's like the old version. There's one only of witnesses.

766
01:06:35,232 --> 01:06:38,232
And then there's one of like.

767
01:06:38,232 --> 01:06:43,232
This is not exactly what happens, but I'm just trying to paint a picture that maybe people understand.

768
01:06:43,232 --> 01:06:50,232
So there's kind of like three and there's a one to one correspondence between each of the three.

769
01:06:50,232 --> 01:06:56,232
So if you're on like block 900,000 A, you could get to 900,000 B or 900,000 C.

770
01:06:56,232 --> 01:06:59,232
You kind of like go between the three of them.

771
01:06:59,232 --> 01:07:07,232
And the whole reason that SegWit worked as a soft fork is because it was like you would hash.

772
01:07:07,232 --> 01:07:11,232
The old version just wouldn't see the signatures.

773
01:07:11,232 --> 01:07:14,232
And it was like possible to.

774
01:07:14,232 --> 01:07:18,232
So the old version looks exactly the same.

775
01:07:18,232 --> 01:07:21,232
As.

776
01:07:21,232 --> 01:07:26,232
Someone who hasn't upgraded will just see a version of these transactions where there are no signatures.

777
01:07:26,232 --> 01:07:36,232
But it's kind of like the new if you run a new SegWit node and you request this block, it will ask, oh, is this a post SegWit node or pre SegWit node?

778
01:07:36,232 --> 01:07:40,232
And actually, then it will give you a completely different block.

779
01:07:40,232 --> 01:07:47,232
And in this way, I actually believe that if you really think about it, SegWit was actually the first.

780
01:07:47,232 --> 01:07:57,232
Either mandatory hard fork or even a mandatory extension block or what some people used to call an evil fork.

781
01:07:57,232 --> 01:08:03,232
This is ironic. This is kind of like arcane and weird, but I don't know if anyone cares about any of this.

782
01:08:03,232 --> 01:08:09,232
But since it was a mandatory four megabyte upgrade, it's like super, super, super unusual.

783
01:08:09,232 --> 01:08:12,232
And I wrote about this somewhere on my blog.

784
01:08:12,232 --> 01:08:15,232
You know, you can find truth going that info.

785
01:08:15,232 --> 01:08:22,232
Anyone cares you can find about how SegWit is, because I write about the terminology of hard fork for a soft fork and stuff like that.

786
01:08:22,232 --> 01:08:27,232
So what I assume the question you were asking is about, oh, if you shrink the block size, what will happen to say?

787
01:08:27,232 --> 01:08:30,232
But actually nothing will happen because it'll all be shrunk proportionally.

788
01:08:30,232 --> 01:08:33,232
So it's not like we're chopping off.

789
01:08:33,232 --> 01:08:37,232
Like only the SegWit part or I don't know if that's what you even meant.

790
01:08:37,232 --> 01:08:40,232
Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking about.

791
01:08:40,232 --> 01:08:47,232
I just wondered, would it be like a redundant kind of.

792
01:08:47,232 --> 01:08:51,232
Stump. Oh, well, yeah, I haven't.

793
01:08:51,232 --> 01:08:56,232
Well, as you just heard, I have kind of a low opinion of.

794
01:08:56,232 --> 01:09:01,232
Oh, yes, so do I think is kind of super, super, super complicated.

795
01:09:01,232 --> 01:09:05,232
It was all designed SegWit and taproot are all designed around supporting lightning,

796
01:09:05,232 --> 01:09:08,232
even though you can make a bullet point list of other things that they do.

797
01:09:08,232 --> 01:09:12,232
And in fact, earlier in this space, we mentioned about quadratic caching.

798
01:09:12,232 --> 01:09:17,232
And and of course, one of the purposes of SegWit was to increase the block size.

799
01:09:17,232 --> 01:09:24,232
It was sort of a compromise. But what I ask is because I believe you're keeping SegWit in.

800
01:09:24,232 --> 01:09:30,232
Right. Yeah. Keep everything. I mean, is that just because it's easier.

801
01:09:31,232 --> 01:09:35,232
Then all the controversy and everything, if you just got rid of it.

802
01:09:35,232 --> 01:09:41,232
Well, yeah, actually taking it out would be much more work than leaving it in, leaving it undisturbed.

803
01:09:41,232 --> 01:09:50,232
And in fact, the key key feature of the eCash L1 is that it just is Bitcoin Core.

804
01:09:50,232 --> 01:09:59,232
It's like a with a very minimal number of changes that are very, very, very, very small and very like tight.

805
01:09:59,232 --> 01:10:05,232
So that that means that, you know, after the fork point actually happens in August,

806
01:10:05,232 --> 01:10:09,232
there really won't need to be any development work on an ongoing basis.

807
01:10:09,232 --> 01:10:14,232
Of course, there still will be. But for the L1, it's just going to be copying Bitcoin Core.

808
01:10:14,232 --> 01:10:17,232
This idea is anyone who likes Bitcoin Core. Here's this thing.

809
01:10:17,232 --> 01:10:24,232
It's just a copy of it. And if Bitcoin Core invents new features, we'll just copy them over.

810
01:10:24,232 --> 01:10:27,232
So we won't have to lift a finger. We won't have to do any work.

811
01:10:27,232 --> 01:10:36,232
We just we just want to keep you just want to copy Bitcoin Core test for the L1 and then copy the altcoin tests for the L2.

812
01:10:36,232 --> 01:10:41,232
And in that way, you know, you can do an enormous amount of work.

813
01:10:41,232 --> 01:10:47,232
But I mean, excuse me, you can get all you can get the benefit of everyone else's work without doing any work yourself.

814
01:10:47,232 --> 01:10:50,232
And that that is much better than trying to roll your own thing.

815
01:10:50,232 --> 01:10:55,232
You know what I mean? Like what if you started up like a hotel and you're like, oh, I'm going to also.

816
01:10:55,232 --> 01:11:01,232
I'm going to make my own copper for the for the wires and for the plumbing in my hotel.

817
01:11:01,232 --> 01:11:05,232
You're like smelting copper in the middle of the day. Sure.

818
01:11:05,232 --> 01:11:08,232
I like it. That's so good. But do so.

819
01:11:08,232 --> 01:11:23,232
I mean, currently, does the our transaction stored either on SegWit or on the block or basically is it more that SegWit is kind of references to transactions?

820
01:11:23,232 --> 01:11:36,232
Are they both equal? So I guess my question is, will any transaction be stored on the SegWit storage or will they all just be stored in the core storage for you?

821
01:11:36,232 --> 01:11:40,232
Well, presumably. Oh, sorry. You cut out a little.

822
01:11:40,232 --> 01:11:43,232
But I think I understood what you said, which is OK.

823
01:11:43,232 --> 01:11:50,232
So what I mean is the SegWit when you see the SegWit part, when people make a SegWit transaction,

824
01:11:50,232 --> 01:12:00,232
it's kind of like when you go on an airplane and you most of the transaction sits in the chair or something.

825
01:12:00,232 --> 01:12:07,232
But about what your luggage gets thrown, it gets stacked and thrown in the bottom of the plane.

826
01:12:07,232 --> 01:12:13,232
You know, so it's all the stuff that you checked, checked bags and you get a discount on the signature.

827
01:12:13,232 --> 01:12:19,232
So the signatures go in a mandatory extension block that holds all the signatures.

828
01:12:19,232 --> 01:12:22,232
So when you make a SegWit transaction, it's like half are in here.

829
01:12:22,232 --> 01:12:27,232
You know, the person's on the plane and they have luggage that they check to check the bag.

830
01:12:27,232 --> 01:12:33,232
If you make a pre SegWit transaction that does not use SegWit, which is still allowed.

831
01:12:33,232 --> 01:12:36,232
That's like you just take the plane and you carry on your bag.

832
01:12:36,232 --> 01:12:42,232
You have to pay more, maybe, but the whole bag is with you in the front.

833
01:12:42,232 --> 01:12:48,232
And so. In both cases, the transactions are in the regular block.

834
01:12:48,232 --> 01:12:54,232
It's just SegWit transactions and some of the stuff stored in the SegWit extension block,

835
01:12:54,232 --> 01:13:02,232
which will be exactly the same situation in the L1 of eCash and the L1 of Bitcoin Core,

836
01:13:02,232 --> 01:13:07,232
because they will be effectively the same software.

837
01:13:07,232 --> 01:13:11,232
So they won't be any SegWit transactions with eCash?

838
01:13:11,232 --> 01:13:14,232
No, there would be. There would be. It would be the same situation.

839
01:13:14,232 --> 01:13:24,232
Same as. So you're scaling down to take account of the extra space that SegWit gave, but you're just scaling.

840
01:13:24,232 --> 01:13:29,232
The whole thing. The whole plane is shrinks.

841
01:13:29,232 --> 01:13:34,232
OK, thanks for your patience. Answer my questions there.

842
01:13:34,232 --> 01:13:41,232
You explained it quite well. OK, thank you. Thanks for your question.

843
01:13:42,232 --> 01:13:49,232
I'm kind of curious, how do you have all of these really nuanced analogies?

844
01:13:49,232 --> 01:13:53,232
I just make them up as I go. OK, I'm trying.

845
01:13:53,232 --> 01:13:58,232
I just figured maybe that one, although that one I had so much that you know that one there,

846
01:13:58,232 --> 01:14:04,232
that one I had help because to delegitimize this was back in the block size war.

847
01:14:04,232 --> 01:14:10,232
And I'm pretty sure we got Bitcoin debates listening with a hijacking Bitcoin cover.

848
01:14:10,232 --> 01:14:16,232
So they know. So during the block size war, the large blockers thought that the long story short,

849
01:14:16,232 --> 01:14:23,232
they made this Web site that had like a Bitcoin versus BCH and had like people waiting in line at a bus stop.

850
01:14:23,232 --> 01:14:29,232
And they had the graphic of people leaving their luggage in the SegWit transaction.

851
01:14:29,232 --> 01:14:33,232
So that one I had stole that one, although they used a bus.

852
01:14:33,232 --> 01:14:41,232
But I thought that's no good because if I use a bus, I think it was called the TX street dot something.

853
01:14:41,232 --> 01:14:46,232
And maybe Vlad knows what it was called. But if I use a bus and I can't use the phrase check a bag,

854
01:14:46,232 --> 01:14:50,232
whereas people actually know what that means on a plane. So I changed it at the last minute.

855
01:14:50,232 --> 01:15:00,232
So I had help on that one. I had help on that one from this bus metaphor where they leave the stuff in like a like they leave the suitcases and they don't.

856
01:15:00,232 --> 01:15:04,232
And I was like, oh, that is clever. And I'm pretty sure someone said it at the time.

857
01:15:04,232 --> 01:15:16,232
But yeah, I don't know what happened to that street. The point of the site was that they eventually wanted to show long lines for BTC,

858
01:15:16,232 --> 01:15:21,232
but BCH working just great. But what actually happened was everyone stopped using BTC.

859
01:15:22,232 --> 01:15:29,232
The block size war transitioned everyone away from being users and it made everyone back into speculators.

860
01:15:29,232 --> 01:15:33,232
So they said, well, this is an unanswered question, so I'm just going to invest and wait.

861
01:15:33,232 --> 01:15:44,232
So this is the origin of buy and hold is the block size war and the resulting whatever ongoing calamities and drama.

862
01:15:44,232 --> 01:15:51,232
I'm just always amazed that the random analogies that I hear, like every time I come in here, they're always amazing.

863
01:15:51,232 --> 01:16:01,232
But yeah, I think just, you know, with BIP300 and the block size wars and Metallic leaving to do Ethereum and all of the, you know,

864
01:16:01,232 --> 01:16:08,232
developer flight of Bitcoin over time just seems like a systematic thing that's happened over and over again.

865
01:16:08,232 --> 01:16:19,232
And I'm kind of hoping that whether it's BIP-110, eCash, a combination thereof, like real conversations just continue to move that forward

866
01:16:19,232 --> 01:16:25,232
because we could have a completely different landscape, you know, if those circumstances wouldn't have happened in the past.

867
01:16:27,232 --> 01:16:36,232
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Like, for example, we have Milton Friedman has this analogy about like their idea manufacturers and distributors and whatever.

868
01:16:36,232 --> 01:16:40,232
But we have my point is we have these people who are like a Roger Ver or like a safety in Amuse or whatever.

869
01:16:40,232 --> 01:16:48,232
They're more of like a marketing person. If we had sidechains the whole time, you know, I firmly believe that safety in Amuse and all these people,

870
01:16:48,232 --> 01:16:56,232
they would be talking about how great Vitalik Buterin is because he's a great smart contract developer on BTC because there never would have been an Ethereum.

871
01:16:56,232 --> 01:17:02,232
And everyone would have been talking about, oh, Nick Szabo, he theorized smart contracts and now they're on BTC.

872
01:17:02,232 --> 01:17:08,232
So everyone would have been like pro-privacy, pro-smart contract, pro-experimentation and all this stuff.

873
01:17:08,232 --> 01:17:14,232
It would be a completely different universe if we had sidechains from the beginning.

874
01:17:14,232 --> 01:17:27,232
And then all of these cryptos, as quote unquote, right, would be connected to Bitcoin rather than the only way you can ever sell your Bitcoin is somebody on the street with cash or you hope that an exchange gives you your money.

875
01:17:28,232 --> 01:17:38,232
Yeah, exactly. I think we don't. Well, let me think about what was I going to say?

876
01:17:38,232 --> 01:17:43,232
There was. I can't remember, but hopefully I will.

877
01:17:43,232 --> 01:17:48,232
But, yeah, I think, yeah, the idea of the sidechain is that all these things are Bitcoin transactions, they're all merged mind.

878
01:17:48,232 --> 01:17:54,232
They're all, you know, every time you pay a transaction fee, it goes to the same group of miners who are getting richer and richer.

879
01:17:55,232 --> 01:18:05,232
Oh, I remember what I was going to say now. OK, the other thing I was going to say was we've lived through a long period where people have been selling this idea of the just buy and hold number go up.

880
01:18:05,232 --> 01:18:17,232
And if those people are right, then I'm wrong and I'm wasting everyone's time with all this hard work because all we need to do is buy and hold and we'll all get super, super rich.

881
01:18:18,232 --> 01:18:28,232
And so why do anything with a lot of effort that takes like technical complexity or, you know, organizing people or whatever, when instead we should all just buy and hold BTC.

882
01:18:28,232 --> 01:18:36,232
So it's a conflict of visions. And the thing is, though, I'm really convinced that they are wrong.

883
01:18:36,232 --> 01:18:42,232
And so far, the price, you know, has not the price in the buy and hold era, which is like the last.

884
01:18:43,232 --> 01:18:50,232
Really, the last I would say 2018 until now, so like this is like a long era, like a seven year era.

885
01:18:51,232 --> 01:19:06,232
But, yeah, the price over the last seven years has only gone up like 10x, whereas previously it went up literally like 10,000x or something crazy like that because it would go from like 10 cents to like $10,000.

886
01:19:07,232 --> 01:19:14,232
Well, I think this is and I'll give it to the hands after this and shut up. But I think this is one big thing. And I think it is a problem for a decade down the road.

887
01:19:14,232 --> 01:19:22,232
But we live in this honeymoon period where free Bitcoin is being printed regularly, like bit one tenors, the small blockers, whatever it may be.

888
01:19:23,232 --> 01:19:34,232
They have no ideas on how you make fees take over the subsidy. That will be a dramatic issue, let alone with quantum and everything else, AI hacking and yada yada.

889
01:19:35,232 --> 01:19:39,232
So I just think it's very short sighted to not want activity on your chain.

890
01:19:40,232 --> 01:19:49,232
Yeah, so do I. And the merge mining solution is right there in front of us the whole time. It's just ripe. It's just there for the taking.

891
01:19:50,232 --> 01:19:57,232
And it just automatically addresses this problem. It just means that whatever network people transact on, it all automatically goes.

892
01:19:58,232 --> 01:20:05,232
So it's just baffling to me why people don't care about it more. But let's go to the next hand.

893
01:20:06,961 --> 01:20:09,681
Which maybe is Shomari. I don't know. It could be.

894
01:20:10,961 --> 01:20:16,401
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Paul. I am trying to I just learned how to actually raise my hand. So that's

895
01:20:16,401 --> 01:20:22,401
actually still trying to figure out how to lower it. OK, there we go. I appreciate you always

896
01:20:22,401 --> 01:20:29,600
providing the access to directly to you each week so that we could kind of just stay on track

897
01:20:29,681 --> 01:20:37,841
with this this launch. So I've been working really on just getting as familiar as I can

898
01:20:37,841 --> 01:20:43,760
with the process of what's going to happen at launch because I'm just I guess I'm anxious.

899
01:20:45,201 --> 01:20:54,080
One of the things that I do plan to do is perhaps launch a sidechain, like a generic sidechain

900
01:20:54,881 --> 01:21:05,920
with some novel, I would say, concepts, specifically the idea that even Vitalik had

901
01:21:05,920 --> 01:21:14,160
recently of converting the entire virtual machine of Ethereum into a RISC-V virtual machine,

902
01:21:14,880 --> 01:21:22,880
which would really make it just more of a turn complete system capable of a lot of the things

903
01:21:22,880 --> 01:21:32,401
that they have to do programmatically with hard forks. They could then do much easier with just

904
01:21:32,401 --> 01:21:39,600
programming new smart contracts. So the idea of RISC-V has been, I guess, bounced around the

905
01:21:39,600 --> 01:21:48,480
Ethereum world and even on the UTXO side, Peter Rison also had some ideas with regards to that.

906
01:21:48,480 --> 01:21:56,961
So I thought it would be an interesting project to create a RISC-V sidechain for eCash.

907
01:21:57,600 --> 01:22:04,240
So I did propose that several times, and I think I've talked to you about this over the past few

908
01:22:04,240 --> 01:22:14,480
weeks, and the Bitwindow does have an interface for proposing a new Drivechain, which I would

909
01:22:14,480 --> 01:22:22,721
imagine it would, but it doesn't actually work. So I've been trying to figure out why that is.

910
01:22:22,721 --> 01:22:24,961
Yes, did we talk about this last time?

911
01:22:25,601 --> 01:22:29,601
We did, but I didn't know why, and I figured out why now, because I've actually gone,

912
01:22:30,641 --> 01:22:36,881
after we spoke, I went through really intensely through the source to just walk through the

913
01:22:36,881 --> 01:22:44,801
whole process. Once I hit submit, what is happening? So I really determined that there is no

914
01:22:45,840 --> 01:22:57,441
current, there's really nothing that is decided yet on how the Bitwindow is going to submit

915
01:22:57,441 --> 01:23:06,001
a proposal to the miners for them to include it into a M1 coinbase transaction.

916
01:23:06,001 --> 01:23:11,840
If you actually go to the code, the Bitwindow code, it specifically, there's a comment that

917
01:23:11,840 --> 01:23:19,361
just says TBD to be determined. So you mentioned earlier in the space that you guys

918
01:23:19,361 --> 01:23:27,601
plan on doing several Fortnets to simulate the launch day, and I'm just

919
01:23:27,601 --> 01:23:32,881
trying to understand how that's supposed to work when the code is technically not even

920
01:23:32,881 --> 01:23:38,801
finished to even launch a new drivechain. So I kind of wanted to start there and just

921
01:23:38,801 --> 01:23:43,120
understand how that's supposed to happen.

922
01:23:43,120 --> 01:23:48,881
It is finished already, basically, but the thing is, on Signet, it doesn't

923
01:23:48,881 --> 01:23:57,040
quite matter. So the idea is this, unless you have a majority of hash rate,

924
01:23:57,040 --> 01:24:01,601
the sidechain won't even be secure at all. So there's no reason to even

925
01:24:01,601 --> 01:24:08,641
create it in the first place, or there's no reason to propose it or whatever.

926
01:24:08,641 --> 01:24:15,441
So you kind of have to get the 51% hash rate first. The process would be

927
01:24:17,521 --> 01:24:24,401
to discuss it with miners before even doing the M1, and it would be if you

928
01:24:24,401 --> 01:24:30,480
can't get their attention to use CoinNews or something, if we're in the super decentralized

929
01:24:30,480 --> 01:24:35,600
world where everyone is living in a bunker and the government is trying to hunt us all down and

930
01:24:35,600 --> 01:24:42,720
kill us, you would use CoinNews to get everyone's attention, then you would discuss,

931
01:24:44,081 --> 01:24:48,720
and then if the miners were like, oh yeah, this is definitely worth the slot, they would do it.

932
01:24:48,720 --> 01:24:56,160
Now, a lot of the graphical user interface stuff is designed, as it should be,

933
01:24:57,121 --> 01:25:05,681
is designed for the actual proof of work where anyone can find a block, anyone could mine a

934
01:25:05,681 --> 01:25:12,320
block at any time, including you. So that's kind of like what it was set up for. Signet is unusual

935
01:25:12,320 --> 01:25:18,241
because it's just one server mines 100% of the blocks with 100% certainty, so it will not make

936
01:25:18,241 --> 01:25:23,440
any sense. So what you should really do is you should just control by you, you're the only

937
01:25:23,440 --> 01:25:30,561
miner for Signet. I realize if I want to be on Signet, I have to

938
01:25:30,561 --> 01:25:37,361
speak directly to LayerTwo Labs, but why would that be the case with the main net?

939
01:25:37,361 --> 01:25:43,841
Why would it be so permissioned? That's my question. Well, on the main net, it won't,

940
01:25:43,841 --> 01:25:48,961
because anyone can find a block, so it will be a completely different night and day. But practically

941
01:25:48,961 --> 01:25:56,081
speaking, if I want to submit my proposal, I have to mine my own block. That's how the software

942
01:25:56,081 --> 01:26:02,961
works, based on the code. Yes, but think about it like this. If you are so small that it is hard for

943
01:26:02,961 --> 01:26:10,641
you to mine a block, then the proposal will never succeed anyway. So that's what I'm trying to

944
01:26:10,641 --> 01:26:17,681
understand. So this is basically, you have to know, you have to be large enough to attract

945
01:26:17,681 --> 01:26:23,440
like miners or mining pools before you even propose a direction. I'm just saying that the timeline

946
01:26:23,440 --> 01:26:30,801
would be different. The timeline is different, as I said. The timeline is, you don't have to be

947
01:26:30,801 --> 01:26:37,040
big at all, if the idea is good. You just need to put the idea out there, make a little website

948
01:26:37,040 --> 01:26:41,361
that says like, this is my idea for a sidechain number eight, and I think it should be called this,

949
01:26:41,361 --> 01:26:47,040
and this is what it should do, and here's my source code. So you can do that with no mining power,

950
01:26:48,000 --> 01:26:53,841
but the point is, the miners would decide first that they want it, and then they would

951
01:26:53,841 --> 01:27:01,681
ratify it. That's the process. Maybe just propose an alternative, because

952
01:27:01,681 --> 01:27:05,040
based on what I thought, I had a completely different idea, if I can just share that with you.

953
01:27:06,320 --> 01:27:10,641
We talked a few weeks ago, maybe very early on, when I joined the spaces, about how you would

954
01:27:10,641 --> 01:27:16,641
kind of have to bribe the miners to include the M1. So that's been in my head. So I've

955
01:27:16,641 --> 01:27:20,801
been like, okay, so maybe a hundred dollars or five hundred thousand dollars, and that will

956
01:27:20,801 --> 01:27:26,641
be sufficient to get my proposal accepted by a miner, whoever decides to include it.

957
01:27:26,641 --> 01:27:30,641
Well, for the M1, I was just thinking that would crowd out some of the block space,

958
01:27:30,641 --> 01:27:35,361
so that instead of paying transactions, instead of including like one or two extra transactions,

959
01:27:35,920 --> 01:27:41,681
you would have to do that. So that was what I was thinking for M1, crowding out. So that would be,

960
01:27:41,681 --> 01:27:45,281
currently the fee rates are super, super low, but even if it was like five dollars per transaction,

961
01:27:45,281 --> 01:27:52,081
it would be like a ten dollar bribe or something. For sure. But I still consider it like a bribe,

962
01:27:52,081 --> 01:27:59,681
in the sense that you want your proposal, and you're willing to pay for someone to include it.

963
01:27:59,681 --> 01:28:07,521
And so a premium, whatever it would be, there's no nominal specific amount, but just a premium,

964
01:28:07,521 --> 01:28:12,320
so that it would be attractive to a miner. But the issue is that with the Coinbase requirement,

965
01:28:12,641 --> 01:28:19,440
no one, I mean, unless you're a miner, can actually propose the M1 in terms of it getting

966
01:28:19,440 --> 01:28:25,760
to the actual L1. Right, the M1, right, yes.

967
01:28:28,000 --> 01:28:34,720
So just, I mean, specifically what I was going to suggest is, would you consider

968
01:28:34,720 --> 01:28:39,601
changing the requirement of the M1 from a Coinbase transaction to a regular

969
01:28:40,240 --> 01:28:46,161
transaction that anyone, any person could put into the mempool? And then with the sufficient fee,

970
01:28:47,521 --> 01:28:50,641
the OP_RETURN obviously would have all the information, but with the sufficient fee on top

971
01:28:50,641 --> 01:28:55,921
of that, it would be an attractive incentive for the miner. And the reason I say that is because

972
01:28:56,721 --> 01:29:03,200
even if you do coordinate with a miner through the CoinNews, there's still no way to guarantee

973
01:29:03,200 --> 01:29:09,120
that the miner is going to do what you want them to do when you pay them, or if you incentivize

974
01:29:09,120 --> 01:29:15,521
them, as opposed to if you were to do it on the L1 with a bribe, then the only way they

975
01:29:15,521 --> 01:29:21,680
could accept that bribe, that fee, would be to include the block. So I felt like it was just a better

976
01:29:21,680 --> 01:29:30,161
alignment of, in terms of permissionless and trustless, a way to add a new Drivechain,

977
01:29:30,161 --> 01:29:36,240
as opposed to having to talk to the miners directly. It could just be done all on chain.

978
01:29:36,240 --> 01:29:42,560
And the only thing you would have to do is adjust the spec, the 300 spec, to change

979
01:29:43,360 --> 01:29:47,921
the M1 from a Coinbase to a regular transaction, which you do for some of the other M's,

980
01:29:47,921 --> 01:29:55,440
like I think M5 and M6 are regular transactions. So M2, M3, M4 would stay Coinbase, and then M1

981
01:29:55,440 --> 01:30:01,281
would just switch. And then that's the entire idea that I had, in terms of just making that process

982
01:30:01,281 --> 01:30:06,880
more permissionless and trustless. Well, it's a very interesting idea, but I'm afraid that it would

983
01:30:06,880 --> 01:30:12,800
not achieve any of its objectives, and it would actually be worse. So first of all, the M2 has to

984
01:30:12,800 --> 01:30:19,521
be in a Coinbase, obviously, because this is ratifying the proposal. But if that's the case,

985
01:30:20,721 --> 01:30:27,120
then you see what I mean? It's all hinging on Coinbases anyway. But the M1 news, just the M1

986
01:30:28,000 --> 01:30:31,440
being a regular transaction. I know, but that's exactly my point, is what difference does it make?

987
01:30:31,440 --> 01:30:38,161
It has to be followed by all these M2s. So what's one more M1? But at least it gets in,

988
01:30:38,161 --> 01:30:45,680
like the actual proposal gets in. But this is why it will die. If the miners aren't set up to

989
01:30:46,320 --> 01:30:52,000
act on the M1, it will die very quickly, because as you know, it immediately needs to be

990
01:30:52,000 --> 01:30:59,841
act. So it's again, the miners have decided already, before the M1, the miners decide that

991
01:30:59,841 --> 01:31:06,481
they want the sidechain. So I mean, you pointed out, so this is exactly what CoinNews is. CoinNews

992
01:31:06,481 --> 01:31:12,161
is a regular transaction that pays a high fee that gets everyone's attention. And you could easily,

993
01:31:12,161 --> 01:31:16,641
in the CoinNews, first of all, you could link out to a site, you could say, go to this site.

994
01:31:16,880 --> 01:31:23,200
Or you could just put all the information of the sidechain in the CoinNews thing itself,

995
01:31:23,200 --> 01:31:26,721
which I don't think you would want to do. I think you'd want to link to GitHub in practice

996
01:31:26,721 --> 01:31:31,601
or something. You'd want to say this thing. Now, you sort of say, well, hey, what if the miner

997
01:31:31,601 --> 01:31:39,200
wants some changes made? But the thing is, if they want those changes made, they're going to get what

998
01:31:39,680 --> 01:31:49,200
they want. And you aren't. The sidechain developer is kind of suggesting, and of course, they have

999
01:31:51,041 --> 01:31:56,800
knowledge and they have prestige and they have expertise. But ultimately, the miners are the

1000
01:31:56,800 --> 01:32:00,961
ones who would either turn it on or off. So if they'd say, well, hey, I don't want this,

1001
01:32:00,961 --> 01:32:05,360
then you could just throw up your hands and walk away. And maybe you would be right.

1002
01:32:06,320 --> 01:32:12,081
But if they want changes, they'll probably get them. Or they could say, why is this here? And

1003
01:32:12,081 --> 01:32:18,641
they have a whole conversation about it. But I don't see the value in forcing the miners to

1004
01:32:18,641 --> 01:32:23,601
adopt a very specific variant of one chain, right? I just don't see the...

1005
01:32:24,401 --> 01:32:29,601
Well, I wouldn't suggest that you would force any specific miner, but I think it would be...

1006
01:32:29,601 --> 01:32:32,000
But if it's consensual, then what difference does it make?

1007
01:32:32,000 --> 01:32:34,961
Well, in terms of just being decentralized. So I wouldn't have...

1008
01:32:34,961 --> 01:32:36,401
But the CoinNews part is already...

1009
01:32:37,680 --> 01:32:43,041
Okay. But what I mean is that you still... I guess what I want to see is, like you mentioned,

1010
01:32:43,041 --> 01:32:51,921
the actual Fortinet. You guys are planning to do, you said, a few trial runs, because I just

1011
01:32:51,921 --> 01:32:56,560
want to kind of see how that in reality plays out with...

1012
01:32:56,560 --> 01:33:01,120
Yeah, I think it would be very helpful for everyone, including me. Well, I would go as

1013
01:33:01,120 --> 01:33:06,401
far as to say... I think I mentioned this last week, maybe, which is I would go as far as to

1014
01:33:06,401 --> 01:33:16,240
say that if we cannot do... We should be able to do one or two trial runs where nothing breaks,

1015
01:33:16,880 --> 01:33:20,641
where everything kind of goes sort of, I don't want to say smoothly, but... So we should be able

1016
01:33:20,641 --> 01:33:27,120
to get two of those, and then we should... Maybe then we should schedule the real hard fork even.

1017
01:33:27,120 --> 01:33:28,961
So I don't know. So far, it seems like...

1018
01:33:29,120 --> 01:33:34,560
I mean, what I'm hearing from you is that the process is really hinging on like CoinNews.

1019
01:33:35,440 --> 01:33:40,961
That's kind of what I'm taking from this. To actually get your Drivechain in, you should...

1020
01:33:40,961 --> 01:33:44,641
Yeah, I think you're right. You know, it's funny, because I had CoinNews kind of around the same

1021
01:33:44,641 --> 01:33:53,440
time and independently. But in my head, I imagine it does hinge on CoinNews, because you have to

1022
01:33:53,440 --> 01:33:59,120
imagine the decentralized world where you can't just assume that there's going to be like a

1023
01:33:59,120 --> 01:34:02,560
foundry phone number that you can like... Exactly. And that was...

1024
01:34:02,560 --> 01:34:04,560
Yeah, I completely agree. I completely agree.

1025
01:34:04,560 --> 01:34:10,880
If you don't have the contacts, but you have a great idea, how does that work? But I mean,

1026
01:34:10,880 --> 01:34:17,680
I do see how CoinNews can be very effective in communicating, because I've used it, and it's

1027
01:34:18,081 --> 01:34:22,081
really cool, actually. I plan on using it some more in terms of...

1028
01:34:22,081 --> 01:34:24,161
Yeah, it was fun. It's a fun idea.

1029
01:34:24,161 --> 01:34:28,401
Because I thought it was just a broadcast, but you can actually respond. You know, there are

1030
01:34:28,401 --> 01:34:32,641
replies, too. So it's really two-way communication. It's pretty...

1031
01:34:32,641 --> 01:34:39,921
I'm a little worried about the replies making it too complex, but for now, I'm staying open-minded.

1032
01:34:39,921 --> 01:34:43,601
So the replies, they weren't my idea. So you know how people feel about it.

1033
01:34:43,601 --> 01:34:44,401
I like the replies.

1034
01:34:44,560 --> 01:34:49,120
I'm sticking with the idea, but I think I'm staying open-minded to it for now.

1035
01:34:50,721 --> 01:34:52,721
I'm staying open-minded to it for now.

1036
01:34:52,721 --> 01:34:57,521
And then the other thing is, I just, in general, I spoke to you last week about just submitting

1037
01:34:58,560 --> 01:35:06,721
some issues and not, you know, unfortunately, being available in Telegram. Have you actually...

1038
01:35:06,721 --> 01:35:11,120
I know, I didn't see. So you put them on GitHub?

1039
01:35:11,120 --> 01:35:15,041
Well, the thing is, your team has been interacting with the issues,

1040
01:35:15,041 --> 01:35:20,481
but not the way that I thought they would. So I was just wondering where that...

1041
01:35:20,481 --> 01:35:21,200
Oh, what did they do?

1042
01:35:21,921 --> 01:35:27,680
Well, I spoke with, not spoke with, but I communicated with, I think, Jacob.

1043
01:35:27,680 --> 01:35:33,680
Jacob, he's working on the eCash wallet. And just, I submitted a few, what should I say,

1044
01:35:33,680 --> 01:35:40,401
feature requests. So he acknowledged them and it was very well-received. So that was fine.

1045
01:35:40,401 --> 01:35:44,641
But then when I submitted a few others that haven't really, I don't know if they've been

1046
01:35:44,641 --> 01:35:48,961
acknowledged, and then one was actually closed without comments. So I'm just kind of wondering

1047
01:35:48,961 --> 01:35:54,481
where things are with those issues, because one in particular, I would say I was a little

1048
01:35:54,481 --> 01:36:01,601
disappointed that it didn't get published in the week two. It was a tier two issue.

1049
01:36:02,240 --> 01:36:11,680
The enforcer crashed. And I took as much information as I could, screenshots,

1050
01:36:11,680 --> 01:36:18,081
logs, and things like that. And I submitted a pretty detailed report. And I thought,

1051
01:36:18,081 --> 01:36:26,401
considering that it was a tier two issue, it would have maybe been possibly in the week two

1052
01:36:27,120 --> 01:36:30,401
contenders. But I don't know if it was even acknowledged because I...

1053
01:36:31,281 --> 01:36:37,360
I didn't even see it because I... But yeah, it would have been it.

1054
01:36:37,360 --> 01:36:43,281
Well, specific, I can just tell you what it was. The error was that if a second transaction

1055
01:36:43,281 --> 01:36:49,041
enters the mempool somehow, and this only ever happened once. So I was happy I was able to

1056
01:36:49,041 --> 01:36:55,680
actually capture it. But a second transaction entered the mempool and, sorry, a duplicate

1057
01:36:55,680 --> 01:37:01,601
transaction entered the mempool and it crashes the enforcer. So that's even why I asked you in

1058
01:37:01,601 --> 01:37:06,880
X if you have the list of all the bugs that have been submitted, because I wasn't sure if you guys

1059
01:37:06,880 --> 01:37:13,120
were aware of this. Maybe it was submitted in week one or whatever. But definitely the crash,

1060
01:37:13,120 --> 01:37:20,960
that your bit window UI turns red. So it's definitely a... And then the logs show

1061
01:37:21,921 --> 01:37:27,521
crash. It doesn't... It's not recoverable. So I thought that was pretty kind of stupid.

1062
01:37:27,521 --> 01:37:29,360
Yeah, no, that's not a good...

1063
01:37:29,360 --> 01:37:33,041
Yeah, but that's about it. And then, as I said, I'm looking forward to the

1064
01:37:33,041 --> 01:37:42,000
Fortinet trials. And if you could take a look at my Drivechain proposal, it's in the issues as well.

1065
01:37:42,801 --> 01:37:53,521
And I would like to perhaps do this RISC-V drivechain. And I think it would be just

1066
01:37:54,080 --> 01:38:00,801
novel. I think there's only two other RISC-V blockchains in existence. So I think it's

1067
01:38:00,801 --> 01:38:05,921
something that would be possibly valuable to the community as a whole to see how this could work.

1068
01:38:06,880 --> 01:38:11,281
Absolutely. This is exactly what we need to, which is that we need people who are not part of the

1069
01:38:11,281 --> 01:38:20,401
existing BTC monoculture. Because I think a lot of this stuff is played out. And I consider myself

1070
01:38:20,401 --> 01:38:27,360
to be inside the monoculture. We need people who are kind of in frontiers and kind of like in

1071
01:38:27,360 --> 01:38:34,080
cross-pot, like between fields and like weird other stuff where stuff is... There's more novelty.

1072
01:38:34,080 --> 01:38:40,240
So that is exactly what we need. Okay, we only have 21 minutes left. So we have a Marcus.

1073
01:38:41,281 --> 01:38:50,161
And why don't we go to that? Yeah, so one thing I was thinking here is that in some senses,

1074
01:38:51,521 --> 01:38:56,801
I feel like normal merge mining is a bit better than Blind Merged Mining.

1075
01:38:58,561 --> 01:39:04,401
So you know how Rootstock already exists, right? And it's a normal merge mine. So

1076
01:39:04,720 --> 01:39:12,641
we have today's Bitcoin miners doing their Rootstock mining. So the thing is,

1077
01:39:13,441 --> 01:39:20,960
there is a first mover advantage here, where if you are a miner and between normal merge mining

1078
01:39:20,960 --> 01:39:28,641
and Blind Merged Mining, you get more money than the other miners who aren't doing the normal

1079
01:39:28,641 --> 01:39:34,720
merge mining, right? So you have this first mover advantage, right? So you have an incentive

1080
01:39:34,720 --> 01:39:41,120
to start doing this thing. Whereas with Blind Merged Mining, it's like every miner

1081
01:39:41,120 --> 01:39:47,681
earns those fees, right? Without having to do anything. So isn't it a bit better that

1082
01:39:47,681 --> 01:39:55,681
they have an incentive to do it first? Well, that's an interesting question. I think

1083
01:39:57,472 --> 01:40:03,312
so the question is, Blind Merged Mining, and just everyone does it automatically,

1084
01:40:03,872 --> 01:40:09,072
with no running of the L2 node. But you're saying in normal merge mining,

1085
01:40:09,072 --> 01:40:14,592
it's a good thing that it nudges them into running a node. Is that what you're saying?

1086
01:40:14,592 --> 01:40:15,231
Yeah, yeah.

1087
01:40:15,231 --> 01:40:19,551
One more node in the world. Well, Blind Merged Mining needs someone to run a node in order...

1088
01:40:20,192 --> 01:40:22,992
So it's the same like number of nodes overall.

1089
01:40:23,551 --> 01:40:27,072
Yeah, that's not what I mean exactly. What I mean is that,

1090
01:40:29,311 --> 01:40:35,552
imagine there's a new sidechain proposal, right? Actually, the first question before that is,

1091
01:40:36,271 --> 01:40:43,552
what happens if I try to deposit to a slot of a sidechain that is not yet being used?

1092
01:40:43,552 --> 01:40:47,791
What happens? Do the coins get frozen? What happens exactly there?

1093
01:40:47,791 --> 01:40:56,271
I think the coins... That's a good question. I don't know. I think it's invalid if the slot

1094
01:40:56,271 --> 01:41:02,832
is not used. I think a more interesting question is, let's say someone activates slot number 17,

1095
01:41:03,551 --> 01:41:08,352
then the sidechain gets used for 20 years, then everyone abandons it and it has zero coins and

1096
01:41:08,352 --> 01:41:12,672
it has no full node software and it has no website anymore. And it's just a ghost town

1097
01:41:12,672 --> 01:41:18,352
and there's nothing there and then you deposit it. I think if you, instead in your first version

1098
01:41:18,352 --> 01:41:24,032
of the question you asked, I think it will just be... Because we reject a lot of stuff as invalid

1099
01:41:24,032 --> 01:41:30,352
if anything weird happens. So I think it will just say, you can't deposit to that. It's invalid

1100
01:41:30,352 --> 01:41:36,752
under BIP300 because no one has used it. But that's why I was trying to follow it up with the

1101
01:41:36,752 --> 01:41:45,231
second question, which is you can have a parallel scenario that you could have

1102
01:41:45,231 --> 01:41:50,672
where you deposit it but there is no full node software. In which case, no one knows what the

1103
01:41:50,672 --> 01:41:56,191
correct bundle hash is and you could take your pick as to whether or not you want to regard

1104
01:41:56,191 --> 01:42:03,551
them all as being thefts or all as being legitimate. I think. I don't know. Does that help at all?

1105
01:42:04,271 --> 01:42:13,472
What I'm trying to get to is that for... This was because I was thinking about what

1106
01:42:13,472 --> 01:42:19,871
Shomaru was saying about the... And you went to say about coin use and stuff. What I think,

1107
01:42:20,912 --> 01:42:29,711
one way this could work is that if the coins are considered frozen, right? So what could happen

1108
01:42:29,711 --> 01:42:37,951
is that it could, at first, work a bit as a space chain, one-way peg kind of thing. And then

1109
01:42:37,951 --> 01:42:43,552
you can test the waters, right? You can start using it already while knowing that the coins

1110
01:42:43,552 --> 01:42:52,511
for now are frozen, right? And then there will be actually fees going to this chain, right?

1111
01:42:52,511 --> 01:42:58,032
That can be collected by normal merge mining instead of Blind Merged Mining. And so what

1112
01:42:58,032 --> 01:43:04,912
would happen is that the miner, what he would need to do is that he would need to either run

1113
01:43:04,912 --> 01:43:12,511
his own node software of this L2 or maybe have someone else run it, whatever. But the point is,

1114
01:43:12,511 --> 01:43:18,752
this is normal merge mining. So only those miners who do run something, they actually earn this

1115
01:43:18,752 --> 01:43:26,752
money. So this would be one kind of permissionless way to make new Drivechains into existence

1116
01:43:26,832 --> 01:43:33,151
without this need to be proposing stuff. You could actually test the waters first.

1117
01:43:35,711 --> 01:43:41,711
Well, it's an interesting idea. I think it's kind of like you could have a completely

1118
01:43:41,711 --> 01:43:48,192
permissioned chain that is totally ruled by one person. This is what Liquid is,

1119
01:43:48,192 --> 01:43:53,951
and all the transaction fees just go to one hard-coded address versus the Drivechain is

1120
01:43:53,951 --> 01:44:00,431
fully open in a way. And then you could blend it in between to your heart's content.

1121
01:44:01,311 --> 01:44:09,711
But I don't know if people would like the centralized version as much. If users were

1122
01:44:09,711 --> 01:44:13,872
like, maybe they would. I don't know. I have no idea. Apparently, Liquid has like five users now,

1123
01:44:13,872 --> 01:44:21,631
so that's up 500% from what they had before, which was zero. But I don't know. Does that

1124
01:44:21,631 --> 01:44:27,712
answer your question at all? Maybe I'm not following what you're saying. I think the issue

1125
01:44:27,712 --> 01:44:37,631
is you can already do stuff that is not 100% open. So that's what I'm getting at,

1126
01:44:37,631 --> 01:44:45,071
if that makes any sense. I don't know. Yeah, but I was talking about Rootstock,

1127
01:44:45,631 --> 01:44:52,511
so what Rootstock has is they do have normal merge mining, and they also have their

1128
01:44:52,511 --> 01:44:59,152
federation. So I think this is kind of the blend you're trying to get to. But then again,

1129
01:44:59,152 --> 01:45:06,511
there is no way to upgrade. Yeah, exactly. Why blend good and bad when you could just have good?

1130
01:45:06,511 --> 01:45:15,392
You could filter out, de-blend, anti-blend that. But I agree that people should try

1131
01:45:15,392 --> 01:45:24,511
different combinations of things. I don't know. And then they have Rootstock. They were in here

1132
01:45:24,511 --> 01:45:29,231
complaining a few weeks ago. They were like, we don't even know our own private keys, so we can't

1133
01:45:29,231 --> 01:45:38,592
get them. Which is kind of like, well, that just sounds strange. A lot of what people do is

1134
01:45:38,592 --> 01:45:48,751
strange. I don't necessarily want to be handcuffed to their choices. But do you still think that

1135
01:45:49,471 --> 01:45:54,751
normal merge mining is sometimes better than Blind Merged Mining? I really think they're mostly

1136
01:45:54,751 --> 01:46:04,112
the same. Yeah, that's the thing. That's one of the reasons, right? Because you're nudging,

1137
01:46:04,112 --> 01:46:09,152
as you said, you're nudging the miners to go and run this. Because if they don't run this,

1138
01:46:09,152 --> 01:46:14,432
they will lose in competition to the other miners, right? So you're constantly nudging

1139
01:46:14,432 --> 01:46:22,432
every miner to go and actually do this merge mining. There's also the liquidity thing,

1140
01:46:22,432 --> 01:46:29,712
because in Blind Merged Mining, someone needs to fund the money on L1, whereas in normal merge

1141
01:46:29,712 --> 01:46:38,112
mining, they don't. Which I haven't thought too much economically about this, but it feels

1142
01:46:38,832 --> 01:46:46,191
better to not need liquidity. Yeah, well, it's interesting you bring up your first point about,

1143
01:46:46,191 --> 01:46:51,872
oh, it encourages miners to compete fiercely so that some can have an edge over the others.

1144
01:46:51,951 --> 01:47:03,071
This was the whole complaint about, oh, sorry, hang on one second. The whole original reason

1145
01:47:03,071 --> 01:47:10,031
was that people were worried about this thing of affecting mining incentives. Now,

1146
01:47:10,031 --> 01:47:14,112
this was back in 2015 when I didn't know any better, and I was actually taking everyone

1147
01:47:14,112 --> 01:47:18,672
seriously. And I didn't realize how insane and stupid all these people were and how everything

1148
01:47:18,672 --> 01:47:23,152
is poorly thought out and nothing makes any sense. None of their complaints make any sense.

1149
01:47:23,152 --> 01:47:29,631
So what actually happened was I was just kind of like, sure, and then I invented this thing

1150
01:47:29,631 --> 01:47:35,631
that would just solve their problem. But I kind of wish that I just said, oh, well,

1151
01:47:36,191 --> 01:47:41,152
it's just another dimension in which miners will compete. And you have to notice that I still even

1152
01:47:41,152 --> 01:47:44,832
get it today where people say, oh, this is going to damage mining incentives because some people

1153
01:47:44,832 --> 01:47:49,712
will compete. So you just can't win with these people. They're just like, they complain about

1154
01:47:49,712 --> 01:47:53,872
something being anti-competitive. They complain about something not being.

1155
01:47:54,592 --> 01:48:00,031
So I just wanted to point out that it's ironic from my point of view that you bring this up.

1156
01:48:00,031 --> 01:48:02,911
This was like the whole point of Blind Merged Mining was that people, they were like, oh,

1157
01:48:02,911 --> 01:48:07,712
we don't want miners to compete on some things. We want there to be like a level playing field

1158
01:48:07,712 --> 01:48:13,312
or whatever. Really, all these people are just like Marxist weirdos. And I don't know,

1159
01:48:13,392 --> 01:48:18,112
like they don't. So I kind of probably should have ignored them the whole time and not even

1160
01:48:18,112 --> 01:48:23,071
invented. But Blind Merged Mining does, as we mentioned last week, it does do this proposal

1161
01:48:23,071 --> 01:48:29,231
builder separation. It does eliminate all MEV. And that's one of the things that it does.

1162
01:48:29,231 --> 01:48:36,752
So since you're getting paid in L2 coins, but you have to pay L1 coins, you don't have to pay the

1163
01:48:36,752 --> 01:48:42,992
same amount. So it's just like a feedback loop to account for that. So that's one thing that I'm not

1164
01:48:42,992 --> 01:48:49,312
worried about, because if it's a very onerous, like if the L1 coins are so much more precious

1165
01:48:49,312 --> 01:48:58,031
than the L2 coins, then you'll just pay fewer of them. You pay fewer L1 coins for the same,

1166
01:48:58,031 --> 01:49:04,831
you pay 80 L1 coins for 100 L2 coins. So that should work itself out. Don't worry about that

1167
01:49:04,911 --> 01:49:13,231
part. Yeah, that's why my main thing is this first mover advantage kind of thing. Because like,

1168
01:49:14,351 --> 01:49:20,672
as you said, you don't know what happens if you try to deposit to a sidechain that is not yet

1169
01:49:20,672 --> 01:49:26,031
activated. I think it should freeze the coins, right? Because then we could actually try this

1170
01:49:26,591 --> 01:49:32,192
experiment out in the wild, the one I'm talking about, right? Of like first sending the coins to

1171
01:49:32,192 --> 01:49:38,672
the slot, and then actually have it go, you know. Yeah, people have proposed this also,

1172
01:49:38,672 --> 01:49:42,271
about like, oh, what could I, one person had an interesting idea, where they said,

1173
01:49:42,271 --> 01:49:49,231
how can I make it so that if I wanted to put up 100 coins, as like a sacrificial thing,

1174
01:49:49,231 --> 01:49:54,591
and it would be like 50 would be paid out over the first year, 25 over the next year,

1175
01:49:54,591 --> 01:49:59,952
it'd be like having like a halving or like a quartering. And someone had that idea a long

1176
01:49:59,952 --> 01:50:06,271
time ago. And they were like, I want to be able to put it all out there in advance so that the

1177
01:50:06,271 --> 01:50:12,831
miners know I'm really going to do it. I think, though, it's not that much of a difference.

1178
01:50:12,831 --> 01:50:17,952
Because no matter what, you need to have the software written first. So that's a big upfront

1179
01:50:17,952 --> 01:50:22,672
cost. So you got to have all the software out, then you got to have 100 coins. I think what

1180
01:50:22,672 --> 01:50:27,552
you would just do is you would just sign, you would sign up some kind of message on L1 that

1181
01:50:27,552 --> 01:50:31,471
said like, you will deposit the coins, and then the miners would have the transaction. And then

1182
01:50:31,471 --> 01:50:37,552
you could like check lock time, verify, you could do like an HTLC on L1. So I think you could do it,

1183
01:50:37,552 --> 01:50:42,672
you could make that work somehow. So it's kind of a wacky idea.

1184
01:50:46,351 --> 01:50:51,952
All right, we got a Shomari hand again. Only nine, eight and a half minutes.

1185
01:50:52,911 --> 01:51:02,351
Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on your advice with the CoinNews being the preferred medium for

1186
01:51:02,911 --> 01:51:08,672
you know, communicating with the miners. I just submitted my proposal. And it's already been

1187
01:51:08,672 --> 01:51:16,831
mined. So it's it's even showing up in the eCash wallet right now. So I just want to say

1188
01:51:17,151 --> 01:51:21,072
there's no excuse, Paul. I want to be in, let me in.

1189
01:51:21,072 --> 01:51:24,591
That's exactly how it should work. Because that's exactly how because of course,

1190
01:51:25,552 --> 01:51:31,391
we all understand that people's attention is limited. So people can't be attentive to every

1191
01:51:32,271 --> 01:51:36,831
thing on the internet. But then this is exactly a way of saying, hey, listen, we know that you

1192
01:51:36,831 --> 01:51:44,192
all saw this. That's like the game changer idea of CoinNews. It's kind of like a smoke signal,

1193
01:51:44,192 --> 01:51:47,632
like in Native America. It's like, everyone can see it. Everyone can see that everyone else

1194
01:51:47,632 --> 01:51:53,391
saw it. So it's a quite, I think it's cool. That's exactly how it should work. So.

1195
01:51:58,992 --> 01:52:02,752
Okay, great. Any final question?

1196
01:52:05,632 --> 01:52:07,312
Yeah, if I may just briefly.

1197
01:52:07,312 --> 01:52:07,872
Yeah, please.

1198
01:52:09,231 --> 01:52:16,672
Can I just respond to something Shomari raised earlier about the RISC-V architecture? If I'm

1199
01:52:16,672 --> 01:52:23,711
not mistaken, in the context of Ethereum, it's being discussed as, you know, a better VM for

1200
01:52:23,711 --> 01:52:29,791
creating like ZK proofs of it. It's like more easily provable than the EVM. So like that,

1201
01:52:29,791 --> 01:52:34,752
that could be one maybe one motivation. Another related motivation, unrelated motivation, I should

1202
01:52:34,752 --> 01:52:40,992
say, is RISC-V, you can actually get Doom running on there, the classic video game Doom, which means

1203
01:52:40,992 --> 01:52:48,031
like there could be a BIP300 Drivechain that plays Doom, maybe. That could be fun.

1204
01:52:48,031 --> 01:52:56,271
But just, you know, that the, I mean, the use case is that I would say the most valuable use

1205
01:52:56,271 --> 01:53:04,512
case I see is that as a builder, you know, most, I'd say most Ethereum people are using Solidity,

1206
01:53:04,512 --> 01:53:10,351
which is a JavaScript-based language. It is Turing-complete, but it has so many limitations,

1207
01:53:10,351 --> 01:53:17,391
and I hit them all the time, you know, over the years. With RISC-V, there's almost no limitations.

1208
01:53:19,632 --> 01:53:23,872
It's, it's, it's, yeah, yeah, certainly you could use any language that could compile.

1209
01:53:23,872 --> 01:53:29,391
Yeah, you could use Rust, you know, C, anything. It's just, it's just, it just, it removes the

1210
01:53:29,391 --> 01:53:35,312
barrier. And so let me just, just also say that I understand why RISC-V wasn't used yet,

1211
01:53:35,952 --> 01:53:42,271
because it's, it's too open, and it would be too dangerous. Well, it also wasn't very mature.

1212
01:53:42,271 --> 01:53:48,031
It wasn't very mature at the time Ethereum came out. Sure, sure. Exactly, exactly. So like now that they've really

1213
01:53:48,031 --> 01:53:53,791
proven, you know, how everything should work, I think they can be a little more aggressive with,

1214
01:53:53,791 --> 01:53:58,512
you know, providing developers with more freedom than they would have been comfortable, you know,

1215
01:53:58,512 --> 01:54:03,151
in the past. So I think it's just a good time, the evolution of, you know, blockchain technology,

1216
01:54:03,872 --> 01:54:07,072
where, because I'm seeing a lot of that happening with like Bitcoin Cash,

1217
01:54:07,072 --> 01:54:11,791
their last upgrade, where they've just removed so many limitations that just were ridiculous,

1218
01:54:11,791 --> 01:54:16,271
absolutely ridiculous. So like, I feel like we're entering that era now where things are going to

1219
01:54:16,271 --> 01:54:20,911
get really practical in terms of like, it's not going to be blockchain development, it's just

1220
01:54:20,911 --> 01:54:25,072
going to be, you know, development technology, but we're going to utilize blockchain without

1221
01:54:25,072 --> 01:54:31,312
worrying about what are the limits, you know, what are the rules. The rules will just be

1222
01:54:31,312 --> 01:54:36,512
what you do in software development. It'll be the same, you know, applications. So like you said,

1223
01:54:36,512 --> 01:54:42,672
like, I would love to see Doom on the sidechain. That would be awesome. Actually, interesting,

1224
01:54:42,672 --> 01:54:48,031
you brought up Bitcoin Cash, and just coming back to the conversation earlier about like the

1225
01:54:48,031 --> 01:54:58,752
difficulty adjustment or readjustment in eCash. Paul, if you recall, Bitcoin Cash had a modified

1226
01:54:59,552 --> 01:55:04,351
difficulty adjustment mechanism where if there was no blocks produced for like a long period,

1227
01:55:04,351 --> 01:55:10,031
it would drop the difficulty like very, very aggressively, right? I'm not sure if that was

1228
01:55:10,031 --> 01:55:14,112
still in, if it's still in there now. But is that something that like, you know, you might consider

1229
01:55:14,112 --> 01:55:19,872
for eCash, because it could, you know, if there's like a rapid drop in hash rate, for whatever

1230
01:55:19,872 --> 01:55:28,031
reason, right? You know, you may not see blocks for a long, long time, right? Yes, I have looked

1231
01:55:28,031 --> 01:55:31,952
into this and it's a very important question, because especially when you don't know what the

1232
01:55:31,952 --> 01:55:37,312
difficulty is, it will be skyrocketing up and up and up and up. And it'd be very easy to overshoot,

1233
01:55:37,312 --> 01:55:44,992
for example. I think what Bitcoin Cash did really did not help because they had to scramble to do

1234
01:55:44,992 --> 01:55:52,591
another hard fork. I think it severely undermined their credibility. And then when you say a long

1235
01:55:52,591 --> 01:55:57,151
time, I think there was six hours. So if it was hours without finding a block, it would like

1236
01:55:57,151 --> 01:56:04,031
slash the difficulty by some amount, large amount. And as a result, miners started triggering it on

1237
01:56:04,031 --> 01:56:09,231
purpose, I think. They would just say, well, we'll just, why would we find a block here when we can

1238
01:56:09,231 --> 01:56:16,591
just wait for the six hours and then it'll be open season, find a bunch of blocks. So I think,

1239
01:56:17,552 --> 01:56:22,271
I think what they did kind of didn't really work. Now, of course, everyone's free to clip the audio

1240
01:56:22,271 --> 01:56:27,312
here and play that. You can play that for me in late August. And look at Paul, it's also not

1241
01:56:27,312 --> 01:56:32,351
working for him. What did he know? But then they called it the Emergency Difficulty Adjustment,

1242
01:56:32,911 --> 01:56:40,752
EDA, which kind of has a very negative vibe if you think about it. So my preferences are to first,

1243
01:56:41,312 --> 01:56:46,512
let's just, let's just see what happens. Maybe it'll be fine. And come what may, there could be

1244
01:56:46,512 --> 01:56:51,952
a giant disaster, but we could just work through it, you know, let's just see. Cross that bridge

1245
01:56:51,952 --> 01:56:57,632
when we come with it to some extent, although also paranoid prepared. Now, today, these days,

1246
01:56:58,432 --> 01:57:05,391
it is actually much easier today. Very, very difficult in the past. But these days,

1247
01:57:05,391 --> 01:57:10,511
it's very easy to rent hash rates. So in addition to getting a bunch of hash, buying a bunch and

1248
01:57:10,511 --> 01:57:16,111
whatever, you could go on and you can just rent. And there's many services that do this. So either

1249
01:57:16,111 --> 01:57:26,111
the coin will be so small, low market cap, not very impressive, but still alive and ready to go.

1250
01:57:27,952 --> 01:57:34,511
It'll either be so low that it won't cost that much money to rent a lot of, you know,

1251
01:57:34,511 --> 01:57:37,552
maybe like we're talking like in the tens or hundreds of thousands,

1252
01:57:40,031 --> 01:57:44,111
to rent like enough hash rate to get it to its next difficulty adjustment, no problem.

1253
01:57:45,072 --> 01:57:49,631
So that's pretty small in the grand scheme of things, like, because it'll probably be fine.

1254
01:57:49,631 --> 01:57:54,271
There'll be lots and lots of blocks, difficulty will be too low. Then one time,

1255
01:57:54,271 --> 01:58:00,192
difficulty will be too high, rent a little bit of hash, get to the next 2016th block.

1256
01:58:02,031 --> 01:58:07,552
Difficulty falls again, then you're back on your feet. So either it'll be small,

1257
01:58:08,911 --> 01:58:14,832
in which case it won't be a big deal, or, you know, will be really big. You know what I mean?

1258
01:58:14,832 --> 01:58:21,952
Our difficulty will be very high, which is really only possible if the block reward is worth a lot,

1259
01:58:21,952 --> 01:58:27,312
which is really only possible if the coin is like skyrocketed into like the top five

1260
01:58:28,031 --> 01:58:36,991
on coin market cap, in which case that's already like a huge, it's a great first week or whatever.

1261
01:58:38,592 --> 01:58:43,232
Now, of course, it's possible that we're in like a Goldilocks situation, except in reverse,

1262
01:58:43,232 --> 01:58:51,552
a terrible situation of like a bad where it's like really big, but not big enough to be like

1263
01:58:52,031 --> 01:58:56,111
super successful, but like whatever. It's kind of hard. You have to take out a pen and paper

1264
01:58:56,751 --> 01:59:03,631
or Microsoft Excel and see like where the unfortunate region is. So hopefully you follow

1265
01:59:03,631 --> 01:59:08,592
my argument so far. So the argument is this, either everything will be fine, or if things are

1266
01:59:08,592 --> 01:59:14,192
not fine, the price will either be low, medium, or high. If it's low, you can rent hash rate,

1267
01:59:14,751 --> 01:59:20,031
it's probably fine. If it's high, then you had a great success. So the fact that you had a really

1268
01:59:20,031 --> 01:59:31,072
dramatic success and then one unclear difficulty, or we can kind of be in the middle. So in that

1269
01:59:31,072 --> 01:59:38,432
case, I think one thing that would be an improvement over the Bitcoin Cash EDA is to

1270
01:59:38,432 --> 01:59:45,871
just release a new version of the software that just one time shifts the difficulty back down by

1271
01:59:46,271 --> 01:59:51,472
30% just that one time. That's it. Just hard code in this block or whatever it is.

1272
01:59:52,271 --> 01:59:59,072
I think that's better than adopting the EDA as a kind of ongoing principle, because

1273
02:00:01,952 --> 02:00:06,031
I just don't think you want to tinker with the difficulty adjustment. It's very,

1274
02:00:06,031 --> 02:00:13,391
very important. It's very basic. It's very crucial. The way I see it, if you really want to

1275
02:00:14,031 --> 02:00:21,391
have the difficulty on the network near the value of the price, the way I see it,

1276
02:00:21,391 --> 02:00:26,991
the problem is just that you can't predict what the price will be easily in advance,

1277
02:00:26,991 --> 02:00:31,631
especially because it'll be a kind of a chaotic time where a lot of people be making up their

1278
02:00:31,631 --> 02:00:36,511
mind. And even if you have a lot of success, like you could have some moderate success,

1279
02:00:36,511 --> 02:00:42,511
price could be like $200 a coin, then you could have more success. And then the mining,

1280
02:00:42,511 --> 02:00:46,911
just the way the mining works is that you could have way more mining and the difficulty could

1281
02:00:46,911 --> 02:00:56,832
shoot up by a lot. It's hard for the difficulty to shoot up by a factor of four unless the price

1282
02:00:56,832 --> 02:01:03,871
is also four times higher than it just was recently. That's what I'm getting at,

1283
02:01:03,871 --> 02:01:10,192
is there's this connection between difficulty going up and the market price skyrocketing.

1284
02:01:10,271 --> 02:01:15,391
So it's kind of like, hopefully, I realize this is kind of a confusing point, but I'm trying to

1285
02:01:15,391 --> 02:01:21,312
say like, well, it's hard for you to have that problem without also having like crazy price

1286
02:01:21,312 --> 02:01:26,031
appreciation. Also, it's just kind of like good news. So it's kind of like, maybe just kind of

1287
02:01:26,031 --> 02:01:31,391
just wait and just see, see what happens. If you get into trouble, you can always reset the

1288
02:01:31,391 --> 02:01:37,631
difficulty down. Because basically if you get into trouble, it's just saying that the current market

1289
02:01:37,631 --> 02:01:42,751
price is just a little low, just a little bit beneath where the difficulty kind of thinks it is.

1290
02:01:42,751 --> 02:01:46,751
So just move the difficulty down. Of course, you can't move the price up. That would be nice,

1291
02:01:46,751 --> 02:01:54,511
but you can't. So just move the difficulty down. And then it should be mostly, now, of course,

1292
02:01:54,511 --> 02:02:04,352
there's no guarantees, but there should be some people mining on each network. And as long as the

1293
02:02:04,352 --> 02:02:11,232
difficulty is so low, on BTC, the difficulty is lower than the market price. And as long as it's

1294
02:02:11,232 --> 02:02:18,111
the same. On eCash, you should be able to have them both. So I think that's my thoughts on that.

1295
02:02:18,111 --> 02:02:22,432
But yeah, I do think that that is a big, anyone who wants to do a hard fork of Bitcoin has to

1296
02:02:23,312 --> 02:02:29,472
somehow figure out what to do about what the initial difficulty should be. And we've said

1297
02:02:29,552 --> 02:02:33,391
we're going to set it very low, but then it will skyrocket up. And so it may just

1298
02:02:34,911 --> 02:02:39,391
automatically overshoot. And so, yeah, those are some of my thoughts.

1299
02:02:40,832 --> 02:02:45,952
It's a complex issue. I don't think the Bitcoin Cash thing helped them. That's my opinion.

1300
02:02:49,232 --> 02:02:55,072
It did not, actually. I concur. It did not. It's just silly, but whatever.

1301
02:02:56,031 --> 02:03:03,391
Okay, great. Well, hey, on that note, we'll have to call it here for today, but next week we'll be

1302
02:03:03,391 --> 02:03:10,432
back. So hopefully everyone enjoys this. Listen to the recording. Send if you want me to talk

1303
02:03:10,432 --> 02:03:18,432
about anything in particular. Send it to me on Twitter. And thanks very much, everyone. See you

1304
02:03:18,432 --> 02:03:25,791
everyone later.